M/S Meera Medical And General Stores Through Its Proprietor Mininath Sanjay Kawade vs. The Commissioner Of State Tax And Another
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Meera Medical and General Stores, through its proprietor Mininath Sanjay Kawade, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The petition challenged an unspecified order or decision related to an alleged discrepancy in excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed. The petitioner contended that this discrepancy was due to a technical/software error. The respondents were the Commissioner of State Tax and another authority. The High Court was considering the matter in its writ jurisdiction.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner has a remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority as provided under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court found that the petitioner's claim that the discrepancy in excess ITC was due to a technical/software error is a ground that can be examined by the Appellate Authority. There is no specific embargo in the powers of the Appellate Authority preventing it from considering such grounds. Consequently, the High Court refrained from exercising its writ jurisdiction and disposed of the writ petition. The disposal does not preclude the petitioner from preferring an appeal before the Appellate Authority.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, specifically under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the grievance raised. 2. Whether the Appellate Authority, under Section 107 of the CGST Act, has the power to consider grounds relating to technical/software errors as a reason for discrepancies in claimed ITC. Arguments for the Petitioner: The petitioner argued that the excess ITC claimed was a result of a technical/software error. While not explicitly stated, the filing of a writ petition suggests a potential challenge to the maintainability of a direct appeal or an attempt to bypass the appellate process. Arguments for the Revenue/State: The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents relied on Section 107(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, to argue that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1039-WP-11908-2022.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 1039 WRIT PETITION NO.11908 OF 2022 M/S MEERA MEDICAL AND GENERAL STORES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MININATH SANJAY KAWADE VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX AND ANOTHER ... Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Patodi And Associates AGP for Respondents/State: Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar … CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE & S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ. DATE : 16.03.2023 PER COURT :
The learned Additional Government Pleader would invite attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short] so as to claim that the petitioner has a remedy of an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Sub-Section 1 of Section 107 of the Act, reads thus: “107. Appeals to Appellate Authority - (1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act or the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act by an adjudicating authority may appeal to such Appellate Authority as may be prescribed within three
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.