M/S Sk Green Home Appliances PVT. LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court, while not entertaining the writ petition at that stage, directed the respondent authorities (respondent Nos. 6 to 8) to respond to the Petitioner's communications within four weeks. The Court noted that the Petitioner had already filed GST TRAN-02 and claimed a certain amount of credit, and the change to TRAN-01 was based on an alleged procedural mistake. The Court opined that the aspects of whether there was a procedural lapse and whether filing GST TRAN-01 was permissible were to be decided by the competent authority. The Petitioner had already addressed communications to the authorities, and it was their bounden duty to respond. The Court stated that only after a decision by the authorities would it be open for the Petitioner to take further legal recourse. The Court explicitly stated it was not touching the merit part of the case and that its disposal should not preclude the Petitioner from approaching any authority, including this court, after the authority's decision if aggrieved.

Facts

M/s SK Green Home Appliances Pvt. Ltd. (Petitioner) filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking directions to allow them to file a revised GST TRAN-1 electronically or manually. The Petitioner sought to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Rs. 16,07,556/- for goods held in stock, as per Section 140(3) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Petitioner had previously filed GST TRAN-02 and claimed Rs. 11,29,000/-. They averred that due to a bona fide misunderstanding by their accountant, only 60% of the credit was claimed, resulting in a differential amount of Rs. 4,78,556/-. The Petitioner had sent two communications to the Deputy State Tax Commissioner and State Tax Commissioner on August 5, 2019, and November 20, 2019, respectively, which remained unreplied.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner can be permitted to file a revised GST TRAN-1 form to claim the differential Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Rs. 4,78,556/-, despite having initially filed GST TRAN-02, considering the alleged procedural lapse by their accountant? 2. Whether the right to claim ITC under Section 140(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, can be defeated due to a procedural mistake in filing the prescribed form? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued that a specific right granted under Section 140 of the CGST Act, 2017, should not be curtailed or 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 rightful credit. The Petitioner also highlighted the lack of response from the authorities to their communications dated August 5, 2019, and November 20, 2019, and contended that the authorities ought to have responded in light of the binding decision of this court.