Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata vs. Addl Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Kolkata North Commissionerate And Anr.
Original PDF →Facts
The appellant, Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata, challenged an order passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST and CX, Kolkata North Commissionerate. The core issue stemmed from a discrepancy in the data uploaded to the GST portal. The appellant contended that while they had filed revised returns for the period October 2016 to March 2017, the data from these revised returns was not fully populated into the new integrated ACES-GST Application system. Instead, the system reflected data from the original returns. This discrepancy prevented the resolution of the issue by the adjudicating authority or the Tribunal. The High Court, in a previous order dated June 25, 2024, had held the writ petition to be maintainable and directed the respondents to clarify the facts and provide a report. The revenue authorities, in an affidavit, confirmed that the data pertaining to the revised returns had not migrated completely to the new system.
Held
The Court held that the appellant's case had to be accepted in light of the stand taken by the department. The Court found that the department had confirmed that the data pertaining to the revised returns had not migrated completely to the new integrated ACES-GST Application system, and the data from the original return was being reflected. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order. The Court directed the authorities to make the necessary correction in the portal and issue a revised order accepting the stand taken by the appellant/assessee. The Court clarified that this exercise should not be misconstrued as a remand for initiation of fresh proceedings. The entire exercise was to be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the server copy of the order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition was maintainable for rectification of data uploaded on the GST portal, considering the inability of the adjudicating authority or Tribunal to resolve such technical data migration issues (as per Section 73 or related provisions concerning demand and recovery, and Section 149 concerning correction of errors)? 2. Whether the appellant's contention regarding incomplete data migration of revised returns is correct, and if so, what rectifications are necessary? Contentions of the Appellant: The appellant argued that the discrepancy arose due to an error in data population where the revised return's Part B was not duly populated into the department's domain. They asserted that this issue could not be resolved by the adjudicating authority or the Tribunal, necessitating intervention by the writ court. They relied on the principle that the writ court can issue appropriate directions for rectification by the appropriate authority. Contentions of the Revenue/State: The revenue authorities, through an affidavit, confirmed that the data relating to the revised Service Tax returns filed by the appellant had not migrated completely to the new integrated ACES-GST Application system, and therefore, the data pertaining to the original return was being reflected in the new system. They did not contest the factual basis of the appellant's claim regarding data migration.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 149
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
pass a revised order.
Mr. Ghosh, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned order which was challenged in the writ petition has to be set aside.
Pursuant to the stand taken by the department, the Portal has to be created and thereafter a revised order has to be passed.
Thus, technically the learned senior advocate is right and for such reason, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order with a direction to the authorities to make the necessary correction in the Portal and issue a revised order accepting the stand taken by the appellant/assessee.
7
The above exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the server copy of this order.
It is made clear that the matter is sent back to the department for compliance of the above direction and this should not be misconstrued as a remand of the matter for initiation of the fresh proceedings.
(T. S. SIVAGNANAM)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.