M/S Sk Impex vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court, while not entertaining the petition at that stage, directed respondent Nos. 6 to 8 to respond to the petitioner's communication within four weeks from the date of the order. The Court explicitly stated that it was not touching the merits of the petitioner's case. The Court considered it appropriate not to entertain the petition at that stage, as the question of whether there was a procedural lapse or otherwise was to be decided by the competent authority, to whom the petitioner had already addressed communications. The Court noted that the authorities had not responded to these communications. The ratio decidendi is that a High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, may direct authorities to respond to pending representations, especially when there has been a prolonged lack of response, without adjudicating on the merits of the underlying claim. The operative direction was for the respondents to respond to the petitioner's communication within four weeks. No issue was expressly left undecided, but the merits of the claim were not adjudicated.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s SK Impex, filed a Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution. They sought directions to allow them to file a revision of GST TRAN-1 electronically or manually and to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Rs. 16,61,040/- for goods held in stock, as per Section 140(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner stated that while filing GST TRAN-1, their accountant mistakenly entered 'Nil' in Table 7A instead of Rs. 16,61,040/-, due to a bona fide error. They had previously sent two communications to the Deputy State Tax Commissioner and State Tax Commissioner on August 2, 2019, and November 19, 2019, respectively, but received no response.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner can be permitted to file a revision of GST TRAN-1 electronically or manually and claim the eligible Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Rs. 16,61,040/-, despite a procedural lapse in filing the original form, relying on Section 140(3) of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the right granted under Section 140 of the CGST Act, 2017, should not be defeated by a procedural lapse. They relied on the Gujarat High Court's decision in M/s. Siddharth Enterprises vs. The Nodal Officer, which held that a mere procedural mistake in filling GST TRAN-01 should not preclude a petitioner from claiming their eligible right. They also highlighted the lack of response from the authorities to their previous communications. Revenue/State's Arguments: The learned AGP requested that notice not be issued and sought short time to obtain information from the authorities. He contended that the petitioner ought to have approached the concerned department directly and that a writ petition was not the desirable course of action. He offered to take further instructions from the department regarding the reasons for the non-response.