TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 777X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide the same further remitting the matter back to respondent No. 1 for reconsideration of the submissions of the petitioner that were raised in its reply to the show cause notice and to pass orders afresh. It is directed that respondent No. 1 may grant fresh personal hearing to the petitioner. In order to avoid further delay, the petitioner are directed to remain present before the authority concerned on 27.02.2024, for which there would not be any necessity of issuance of a fresh notice by the authority concerned. Petition allowed by way of remand. - HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI For the Petitioner : Mr. M. Ramachandra Murthy For the Respondents : Mr. Dominic Fernandes for R-1. Mr. N. Bhujang ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted its Form GSTR-3B in September, 2018, the petitioner again made a mistake by reflecting the ITC reversal under the IGST instead of SGST. When the return of the petitioner was subjected to audit, the petitioner immediately brought it to the notice of the authorities about the second mistake again which has arisen so far as availing ITC reversal in IGST instead of SGST. 5. Meanwhile, respondent-authorities issued a show cause notice to the petitioner under Section 73 of the Act alleging excess availment of ITC during the period 2017-18. The petitioner immediately entered appearance before the respondent-authorities and submitted its detailed reply on 20.10.2023 (Annexure-P17), categorically bringing to the notice of the respondent-authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner, the authorities must avoid a blinkered view while adjudicating/assessing the tax liability of a dealer under the Act. In the instant case, the respondents have, in the absence of a prescribed GSTR-2A for the relevant tax periods referred to the IGST import figures reflected in the ICE GATE portal of the Customs Department for all the months except those in which the errors have been committed. This clearly indicates that the respondents are aware of the actual figures and also that there is an error committed by the petitioner, but has chosen to selectively ignore the IGST import amounts reflected in the ICE GATE portal for the tax periods in dispute, which is yet another circumstance to uphold the claim of the petitioner. 12. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the show-cause notice dated 17.01.2022. (vi) It is made clear that the above order is in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, particularly since the tax periods involved relate to the first year of introduction of GST and this order shall not be treated as a precedent nor have any precedential value for any purpose whatsoever. 7. Similar view has also been taken by the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 15368 of 2023, in the case of Star Engineers (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others, wherein again the Bombay High Court referred to a series of decisions of similar nature that arose from Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Sun Dye Chem Vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) Ors. 2020 TIOL 1858 HC MAD GST and also that of Pentac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction (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 varied aspects touching the GST returns would have serious cascading effect, prejudicial not only to the assessee, but also to the third parties. 22. It is conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period of legislation. Admittedly several glitches had occurred even from the part of the Department. The said period was regarded by the courts as a trial and error phase as far as implementation of the statute was concerned. The taxpayers were also in a state of confusion, during those periods. Unfamiliarity with the new regime caused formidable and unprecedented difficulties. As observed by the High Court of Delhi in Brand Equity Treaties Limited and Others v. Union of India and Others (MANU/DE/1009/2020), these problems could be attributed either to the failure of the system maintained by the Department or even on the inexperience of the assessees in the ways and means provided by the new regime. The court went on to observe that the De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
