Case Law Details

Case Name : Calcutta Canvas Co. Vs. Union of India (Madras High Court)
Appeal Number : W.P. No. 26705 of 2019
Date of Judgement/Order : 06/09/2019
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : All High Courts (5869) Madras High Court (522)

Calcutta Canvas Co. Vs. Union of India (Madras High Court)

Mr.K.S.Ramasamy, learned standing counsel takes notice for the respondents 1, 3 to 6. Since this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage only by directing the petitioner to approach the  Nodal Officer, notice to the second respondent is dispensed with.

2. The petitioner seeks for a mandamus directing the 4th respondent to permit the petitioner to correct the bona fide error in TRAN-1 form to avail Tax Input Credit to the tune of Rs.8,27,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand Only), by considering their representation dated 26.05.2019.

3. Heard both

4. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

They are the registered dealer. During the advent of GST, they had huge opening stock purchased from traders (not covered under Excise Invoices), which they had attempted to report by filing form TRAN-1, in order to carry forward input tax credit. During this attempt, they had occurred a bona fide error on their part, wherein, they had reported the said stock details under column 7(d) instead of 7(b) of the form TRAN-1. The said error is evident from TRAN-2 form, which did not reflect the rate of credit in column 4 of the respective form. In view of the above said bona fide error, the petitioner had faced a financial loss to the tune of Rs.6,76,321/- under the caption of CGST and tune of Rs.1,50,999/- under the caption of IGST. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation on 12.12.2018 before the fourth respondent and again on 25.06.2019 before the respondents 3 & 4 as well, marking a copy to the fifth respondent requesting an opportunity to rectify the bona fide error. However, the said request has not been considered. Hence, the present writ petition is filed with the relief as stated supra.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the above contentions.

6. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the respondents 1, 3 to 6 submitted that for redressal of these grievances, a Nodal Officer was already appointed and it is for the petitioner to approach the said Nodal Officer and file a representation. He further submitted that in this case, appropriate Nodal Officer is the Nodal Officer (North), Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai. Therefore, he submitted that it is open to the petitioner to approach the said Nodal Officer and seek for redressal of their grievance.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that liberty may be given to the petitioner to approach the said Nodal Officer.

8. Considering the above stated facts and circumstances and in view of the stand taken by the respondents 1, 3 to 6 as discussed supra, it is for the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority, Nodal Officer (North), Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai, and make a representation for redressal of their grievance.

9. Thus, this Writ Petition is disposed of, only by granting such liberty to the petitioner to approach the said Nodal Officer and make a representation within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such representation/request, the said Nodal Officer shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks thereafter. No costs.

Download Judgment/Order

More Under Goods and Services Tax

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

September 2020
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930