SK Impex v. Union of India
[Citation -2020-LL-0611-62]

Citation 2020-LL-0611-62
Appellant Name SK Impex
Respondent Name Union of India
Court HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Relevant Act CGST
Date of Order 11/06/2020
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags goods and services tax • service of notice • bona fide mistake • inadvertent error • input tax credit • procedural lapse


C/SCA/7384/2020 ORDER IN HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7384 of 2020 M/S SK IMPEX Versus UNION OF INDIA Appearance: MR.AVINASH PODDAR(9761) for Petitioner(s) No. 1 Mr. Devang Vyas ASG, for UOI Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, for respondent State and its authorities CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA Date : 11/06/2020 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI) Notice returnable forthwith. 2. Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India Mr. Devang Vyas waives service of Notice on behalf of Union of India and learned AGP Mr. Utkarsh Sharma waives service of Notice on behalf of respondent State and its authorities. 3. This is petition preferred under Article 226 of Constitution seeking directions to respondents to permit petitioner to file revision of GST TRAN-1 electronically or manually and allow credit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Rs. 16,61,040/- for goods held in stock as claimed in accordance with section Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 30 10:53:30 IST 2021 C/SCA/7384/2020 ORDER 140(3) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 in its online electronic credit ledger for payment of its output tax liability. 4. As per case in petitioner, petitioner claimed that while filling GHT TRAN 01 by mistake in table 7A amount was for purpose of credit to be Nil , instead of Rs. 16,61,040/- It was averred in petition that same happened due to bona fide mistake on part of Accountant of petitioner. Due to inadvertent error, it was submitted that eligible credit of Rs. 16,61,040/- could not be claimed. 5. It is pointed out by petitioner that specific right given under section 140 of CGST Act, 2017, could not be curtailed or defeated on account of procedural lapse. Relying on decision of this court rendered in case of M/s. Siddharth Enterprises through Partner Mahesh Liladhar Tibdewal vs. Nodal Officer in Special Civil Application No. 5758 of 2018 and allied matters, it is urged that mere procedural mistake in filling of form GST TRAN 01 could not be held as ground for precluding petitioner to claim right even under existing provisions. 6. We have heard learned advocate Mr. Avinash Poddar for petitioner. On lines of petition, he made detailed submissions. He drew our attention to fact that two communications have already been sent to Deputy State Tax Commissioner as well as State Tax Commissioner respectively on 2.8.2019 and 19.11.2019. He urged that both these communications have not been replied to though much of time is elapsed. He also agrees that according to him decision of this Page 2 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 30 10:53:30 IST 2021 C/SCA/7384/2020 ORDER court of September, 2019 would bind authorities which ought to have responded to last communication of November, 2020 in wake of binding decision. 7. Learned AGP Mr. Utkarsh Sharma requested that notice may not be issued and short time be accorded to him to obtain required information from authorities. Mr. Sharma has urged that petitioner ought to have approached concerned department even if there has been no response as direct approach in this court by way of writ petition is not desirable. He further submitted that if opportunity is given to him, he would take further instructions from department and let court know of reasons of non- response from authorities till date. 8. Having heard learned advocates for respective parties and having noticed facts, while case of petitioner is that mistake committed was procedural, court considers appropriate not to entertain petition at this stage. Whether there is procedural lapse or otherwise, is aspects to be gone into and decided by competent authority, to which petitioner has already addressed communication way back in August and September, 2019. authority of respondents department has not decided to respond to same so far. It is only after decision is rendered by authorities, it will be open for petitioner to take further legal recourse in accordance with law. 9. While not entertaining this petition and not touching merit part of case of petitioner, respondent Nos. 6 to 8 are Page 3 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 30 10:53:30 IST 2021 C/SCA/7384/2020 ORDER directed to respond to communication of petitioner within four weeks from date of receipt of this order. 10. With above, petition is disposed of. 11. Disposal of this petition shall not come in way of petitioner to approach any authority including approaching this court, as this court has not entered into merits of case of petitioner, after decision of authority comes and he is aggrieved by that. 12. Learned advocate for petitioner shall supply copies of petition to learned ASG and AGP, who both shall communicate respective respondents for whom they appear about passing of present order. (SONIA GOKANI, J) (N.V.ANJARIA, J) MISHRA AMIT V. Page 4 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 30 10:53:30 IST 2021 SK Impex v. Union of India
Report Error