Tech Force Composites PVT. LTD. Goa Unit, Rep. By Its Poa, Dileep Naik. vs. Union Of INDIA, Thr. Ministry Of Finance, New Delhi And 5 Ors.
Held
The Court held that the interest of justice would be served by allowing the Petitioner to make a representation to the CBIC. The CBIC was directed to consider this representation for verification and bonafide of the claim made by the Petitioner, in accordance with law and on its own merits. The Petitioner was to make this representation within 15 days, and the CBIC was directed to dispose of it expeditiously, within two months of receipt. The Court clarified that it had not examined the rival contentions on merits, leaving that exercise to the CBIC. If the Petitioner was not satisfied with the CBIC's response, liberty was reserved to take out appropriate proceedings. The Court noted that considerable time had elapsed since its previous order on March 5, 2019, and therefore, did not deem it appropriate to grant the adjournment sought by the revenue.
Facts
The Petitioner, Tech Force Composites Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Goa challenging the GST authorities' inaction. The Petitioner had submitted its TRAN-1 form on the online GST portal on December 27, 2017. Due to a typographical/human error, the Petitioner claimed a short credit of Rs. 1,21,35,874/- by entering Rs. 13,48,430/- instead of the intended Rs. 1,34,84,304/-. The Petitioner sought relief from the Court, referencing a previous order in a similar case, O/E/N India Ltd. & Anr. Vs Union of India & others.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Petitioner should be permitted to make a representation to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) regarding the claimed short credit due to a typographical error in the TRAN-1 form, and if so, whether the CBIC should be directed to consider such representation on its merits. Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the error was a bonafide typographical/human mistake and sought a direction similar to the one granted in O/E/N India Ltd. & Anr Vs Union of India & others, where the Court allowed the petitioner to make a representation to the CBIC, which was then directed to consider it. Revenue's Contention: The learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 (GST authorities) requested time to consult the CBIC on whether a representation of this nature would be considered.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 WP78-19dt.27.09.2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 78 OF 2019 TECH FORCE COMPOSITES PVT. LTD. GOA UNIT, REP. BY ITS POA, DILEEP NAIK. ... Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA, THR. MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI AND 5 ORS. ... Respondents Mr. G. K. Sardessai, Mr. Avalon Alton Carvalho and Ms. M. Rao, Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr. D. Pangam, Advocate General with Mr. S. P. Munj, Addl. Government Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 and 4. Ms. Priyanka Kamat, Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.5 and 6. Coram:- M. S. SONAK & NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ. Date:- 27th September, 2019 P.C. Heard Mr. G. K. Sardessai, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. P. Kamat, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.5 and 6. 2. Mr. Munj appears for Respondent Nos.3 and 4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 though served are not represented by any 2 WP78-19dt.27.09.2019 counsel.
The grievance of the Petitioner is that when the Petitioner submitted its TRAN-1 form on the online GST portal on 27.12.2017
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.