Case Law Details
1. FACTS OF CASE:
1. M/S Deendayal Port Trust (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) filed ST-3 for the period from 1st April 2017 to 30th June 2017 on 14.08.2017. After filing, the said return, the petitioner realised that certain invoices pertaining to the said period remained unaccounted and consequently ITC involved in such invoices could not be claimed in the return of service tax in Form ST3.
2. The petitioner, thereafter, filed revised Form ST-3 on 17.09.2017, wherein ITC of Rs.6,94,19,228/- was claimed. Further, the petitioner also realised that some more invoices remained unaccounted and ITC involved therein amounting to Rs. 99,46,810/- was left out even in the revised return.
3. Therefore, the petitioner tried to file second revised return to claim the correct amount of ITC. However, the online ACES did not permit to petitioner to file revised return for the second time. Therefore, the petitioner could not claim ITC to the tune of Rs. 99,46,810/-.
4. However, the petitioner in TRAN-1 had entered ITC amounting to Rs. 7,93,66,038 which also includes amount of Rs. 99,46,810/-
5. Thereafter, the department of revenue informed to the petitioner that there is difference of Rs. 99,46,810/- between the ITC amount indicated in TRAN-1 and ITC amount indicated in revised ST-3 filed and asked to the petitioner to reverse or pay the differential amount of Rs. 99,46,810/-
2. CONTENTION BY PETITIONER
1. Input tax credit cannot be denied on the ground that once original ST-3 is revised, then there is no option under Service Tax Rules 1994 to revise it again.
2. Availing Input tax credit is basic right of the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be deprived of the legitimate claim of ITC on the ground of interpretation made by the respondent that there is no option under Service Tax Rules 1994 to revise it again.
3. It was contended that if there is no mechanism in “Tran1” whereby in case any variation in the actual amount of ITC and the amount of ITC appearing in ST3, then actual amount of ITC is required to be granted manually after proper verification.
4. It was also contended that vide order no. 01/2020-GST dated 7th February 2020 portal is opened for period till 31st March 2020 to file TRAN-1. Therefore, it was submitted that necessary directions to be given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for ITC under CGST Act 2017 considering Form ST3 filed by the petitioner together with differential sum of Rs.99,46,810/- and to verify the claim of the petitioner then the petitioner would be entitled to upload the revised Form Tran-1 in order to get the credit of ITC to which the petitioner is entitled to.
3. CONTENTION BY RESPONDENT
It was contended that once the original return ST-3 is revised, there is no option in the Service Tax Rules, 1994 to permit to file second revised return and the petitioner is not entitled to carry forward the amount of Rs. 99,46,810/-
4. RATIO DECIDENDI BY HON’BLE HIGH COURT
It was held that stand taken by the respondent that once original return ST-3 is revised, there is no option in the Service Tax Rules, 1994 to permit to file second revised return is not tenable.
Further, it was held that ACES portal not allowing the petitioner to revise the Form ST3 for the second time within prescribed period resulting into technical glitches is contrary with the provisions of Rule 7B of Rules 1994. Thus, ITC cannot be denied to the petitioner on account of technical glitches since there is no prohibition as per rule 7B to file revised return more than one time.
Author Bio
