M/S At & S INDIA PVT Limited vs. The Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s AT & S India Pvt. Limited, a manufacturer, challenged a letter dated 24.04.2019 from the Additional Commissioner of Central Tax (Respondent No. 6). This letter rejected the petitioner's request to credit 50% of capital goods for the period April 2017 to June 2017 in Form GST TRAN-1. The petitioner, previously registered under Central Excise, Finance Act, and KVAT Act, discovered an unavailed credit of Rs. 1,16,45,079/- for capital goods that was not reflected in their electronic ledger. After attempts to resolve the issue with the help desk and authorities, their request to revise Form GST TRAN-1 was denied by Respondent No. 6. The petitioner contends this was due to a typographical error when uploading the form.
Held
The Court held that the figure mentioned in Form GST TRAN-1 appeared to be a technical glitch arising from the petitioner's inadvertence. Citing its own decision in M/s Kongovi Private Limited, the Court reiterated that such technical glitches require to be addressed by the Nodal Officers appointed as per Circular instructions dated 03.04.2018. The Court emphasized that the object and purpose of the transitional arrangements under Section 140 of the Act must be achieved. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order at Annexure-A and restored the proceedings to the file of Respondent No. 6. Respondent No. 6 was directed to re-consider the petitioner's request for redressal of grievances in accordance with law. The petitioner was directed to appear before Respondent No. 6 on 08.07.2019, and the Nodal Officer was instructed to address the grievance expeditiously. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether a typographical error in Clause 11 of Table VI of Form GST TRAN-1, where the petitioner mentioned 'Zero' instead of repeating the amount from Clause 10, constitutes a technical glitch that should be addressed by the Nodal Officer appointed under Circular dated 03.04.2018, thereby requiring reconsideration of the petitioner's request to revise the form? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on the interpretation of transitional provisions and the scope of the Nodal Officer's role). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the error was a mere typographical mistake, a form of inadvertence, and should be treated as a technical glitch. They relied on this Court's decision in M/s Kongovi Private Limited Vs. The Union of India and others, which held that technical glitches arising from assesse's inadvertence should be addressed by the Nodal Officer. They asserted that the object of transitional arrangements under Section 140 of the Act should be achieved. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents contended that the typographical error could not be construed as a technical glitch that would warrant interference by the Nodal Officer to redress the petitioner's grievance.
Sections Cited
Section 140
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R
The petitioner has challenged the communication dated 24.04.2019 issued by the respondent No.6, whereby the request of the petitioner to credit 50% of the capital goods for the period April 2017 to June 2017 in Form GST TRAN-1 has been denied.
The petitioner is a Company engaged in manufacturing, trading and selling of high technology Printed Circuit Board. The petitioner was registered as a manufacturer under the Central Excise Act, 1944, as a Service Provider under the Finance Act, 1994 and also a dealer under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act 2003. The petitioner while uploading Form GST TRAN- 1 noticed Rs.1,16,45,079/- being unavailed credit of 50% in respect of the Capital goods has not been entered in their Electric ledger and filed a complaint with the help desk, but has not yielded any response. Several requests were made before the respondents- Authorities. Finally, respondent No.6 vide Annexure-A dated 24.04.2019 rejected the request of the petitioner to revise the Form GST-TRAN-1 as claimed. Hence, this petition.
Learned Counsel Sri. Ravi Raghavan appearing for the petitioner placing reliance on the order of this Court in the case of M/s Kongovi Private Limited Vs. The Union of India and others, (2019 VIL-132-KAR, would submit that any technical glitches arising out of the petitioner/assesse’s inadvertence also requires to be addressed by the Nodal Officer appointed in terms of the Circular instructions dated 03.04.2018. Mentioning Zero in Clause No.11 of Table VI of Form GST TRAN-1 instead of repeating the amount mentioned in Clause No.10 was only a typographical error and was inadvertently committed at the time of uploading the Form GST TRAN-1. The same ought to have been considered by the respondent authorities in right perspective.
Learned counsel Smt. M.R. Vanaja appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, 5 to 8 justifying the impugned order submits that the typographical error could not be construed as technical glitches calling for interference of the Nodal Officer to redress the grievance of the petitioner.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, it is evident that figure mentioned in Form GST TRAN-1 appears to be a technical glitch arising out of the inadvertence of the petitioner. This Court in the case of M/s Kongovi Private Limited, supra, has categorically held in para No.21 of the judgment as under: “….such technical glitches arising out of the petitioner/assesse’s inadvertence requires to be addressed by the Nodal Officers appointed in terms of Circular instructions dated 03/04/2018 supra. The object and purpose of the transitional arrangements made under Section 140 of the Act requires to be achieved to its logical end. Hence keeping open all the rights and contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate for this court to direct the petitioner to approach the Nodal Officer appointed for the State of Karnataka in terms of circular dated 03.04.2018.”
In view of the aforesaid, impugned order at Annexure-A is set aside. The proceedings are restored to the file of respondent No.6 to re-consider the request of the petitioner for redressal of the grievances in accordance with law.
The assessee shall appear before the respondent No.6 on 08.07.2019. The Nodal Officer shall address the grievance of the petitioner in an expedite manner.
Writ petition stands disposed of, in terms of the above. JUDGE
Psg*
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.