Suprabha Manoranjan vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Tax And Central Excise
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Suprabha Manonranjan, proprietrix of M/s Menon Agencies, is a registered dealer under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. She filed returns for January and March 2018, but later realized that the values were incorrectly shown as zero due to technical issues during upload. This error caused significant hardship. Consequently, she filed an application (Ext.P6) on January 13, 2022, seeking correction of these returns. The petitioner relies on a Madras High Court decision in M/s.Sun Dye Chem v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST). The respondents are the Assistant Commissioner, Central Tax and Central Excise, CGST Department, Thrissur Division, the Chief Commissioner of Central Tax, and the Union of India and State of Kerala.
Held
The Court directed the competent authority among respondents 1 and 2 (Assistant Commissioner or Chief Commissioner) to consider and dispose of the petitioner's application (Ext.P6) expeditiously, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. An opportunity of hearing must be granted to the petitioner before disposal. The Court also emphasized that binding judgments of Courts of law should be borne in mind while disposing of Ext.P6. The Court did not explicitly decide on the merits of the petitioner's claim for correction of returns but focused on ensuring the expeditious disposal of her application. The question of whether the petitioner would ultimately be permitted to revise her returns was left to be decided by the competent authority.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the expeditious disposal of her application (Ext.P6) seeking correction of GST returns filed for January and March 2018, and permission to revise the same? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that errors occurred in uploading her GST returns for January and March 2018, resulting in incorrect zero values being declared, which caused her prejudice and hardship. She sought a direction for the disposal of her application (Ext.P6) and permission to revise the returns. She placed reliance on the decision in M/s.Sun Dye Chem v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court) to support her claim for correction of returns. Respondents' Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. The court heard the learned counsel for the respondents.
Sections Cited
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT Petitioner seeks for a direction to dispose of Ext.P6 application and also to permit the petitioner to revise the returns as sought for in Ext.P6. 2. Petitioner is a registered dealer under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. In the returns filed for the months of January and March, 2018; petitioner subsequently realized that a mistake had occurred, while uploading the returns. The values were incorrectly shown as zero in the returns and, according to the petitioner, the same arose on account of certain technical issues. As a result of the mistake, great prejudice and hardships are being caused to the petitioner. Therefore, by Ext.P6 application dated 13.01.2022 petitioner has sought for correction of the returns. Reliance is placed upon the decision of M/s.Sun Dye Chem v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST),
WP(C) NO. 4885 OF 2022 3 The Commissioner of State Tax [2020 (11) TMI 108- Madras High Court.]
Having heard Sri.Harisankar V.Menon, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Smt.Preetha S.Nair, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, I am of the view that this writ petition itself can be disposed of directing an expeditious consideration of Ext.P6. 4. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the competent amongst respondents 1 and 2 to consider and dispose of Ext.P6, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Needless to mention, the binding judgments of Courts of law shall also be borne in mind while disposing of Ext.P6. The writ petition is disposed of. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE AMV/15/02//2022
WP(C) NO. 4885 OF 2022 4
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.