TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the ITC or made payment of GST for such ITC utilised on unsold units as on 31st March 2019 - HELD THAT:- Petitioner No. 1 has made a bona fide mistake in Form DRC 03 dated 26th August 2022 and 1st September 2022. Petitioner No. 1 had inadvertently shown the year as Financial Year 2019-20 instead of Financial Year 2018-19. As correctly submitted by Petitioner No. 1, the fact, that the there was a bona fide mistake, was clear from the narration in the said Form DRC 03. Further, as rightly submitted by Petitioner No. 1, in Financial Year 2019-2020, Petitioner No. 1 was not entitled to avail of any ITC and had not availed of any ITC, and, consequently, there was no question of ITC for Financial Year 2019-20 being reversed by Petitioner No. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion No. 3/2019 dated 29th March 2019 a new scheme was introduced for the real estate sector. Under the new scheme, for affordable housing properties effective GST rate is 1% without Input Tax Credit ( ITC) and for residential properties outside affordable segment effective GST rate is 5% without ITC, as opposed to the old regime (i.e. before 1st April 2019) whereunder the GST rate for affordable and residential properties other than affordable were 8% and 12% respectively. For under construction projects, developers were given an option to choose old rates (effective rate of 8% or 12% with ITC) or new rates without ITC. This option was only for under construction projects and had to be exercised within a prescribed time limit. However, in c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notification No. 3/2019, pertaining to unsold units as on 31st March 2019 as per Rule 42 of the CGST Rules. By the following DRC 03 Forms, Petitioner No. 1 had reversed ITC in the following manner. Sr.No. Date of DRC 03 ARN Amount 1. 02.082022 AD270822001276A 13,482,448/- 2. 26.08.2022 AD270822025540B 30,480,886/- 3. 01.09.2022 AD270922000492B 15,647,968/- 7. With respect to DRC 03 dated 2nd August 2022, Petitioner No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted that all payments were made for the Financial Year 2018-19, and, accordingly, requested the Department to consider the same for the said period. 11. Without considering the request of Petitioner No. 1, Final Audit Report dated 7th November 2023 was issued to the Petitioner No. 1 demanding Rs. 2,95,07,519/- [Rs. 29,030,949/- + Rs. 4,76,570/-] along with interest. 12. The Petitioner again, by a letter dated 1st December 2023, submitted that it had complied with the conditions laid down in Notification No. 3/2019 and had accordingly reversed ITC / made payment of GST pertaining to unsold units as on 31st March 2019 as per Rule 42 of the CGST Rules. Details of the payment were again shared with Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Petition. 17. In our view, the facts narrated above clearly show that the Petitioner No. 1 has made a bona fide mistake in Form DRC 03 dated 26th August 2022 and 1st September 2022. Petitioner No. 1 had inadvertently shown the year as Financial Year 2019-20 instead of Financial Year 2018-19. As correctly submitted by Petitioner No. 1, the fact, that the there was a bona fide mistake, was clear from the narration in the said Form DRC 03. Further, as rightly submitted by Petitioner No. 1, in Financial Year 2019-2020, Petitioner No. 1 was not entitled to avail of any ITC and had not availed of any ITC, and, consequently, there was no question of ITC for Financial Year 2019-20 being reversed by Petitioner No. 1. 18. The Division Bench o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons of law are required to be alive to such considerations and it is for such purpose the substantive provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 37 and sub-section (9) of Section 39 minus the proviso, have permitted rectification of inadvertent errors. 21. We may also observe that the situation like in the present case, was also the situation in the proceedings before the different High Courts as noted by us above, wherein the errors of the assessee were inadvertent and bona fide. There was not an iota of an illegal gain being derived by the assessees. In fact, the scheme of the GST laws itself would contemplate correct data to be available in each and every return of tax, being filed by the assessees. Any incorrect particulars on the v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
