An unexpected issue emerged, in which it was stressed that technicalities made via the Department and not the assessee must not be put forth by the department to defeat the legal rights and entitlements of the assessees.
It was carried out by the Bombay High Court that the related Revenue officials (respondent) could not refuse the advantage of the accrued Input tax credit to the taxpayer (applicant) merely because the specified forms had not been furnished electronically but furnished manually.
Since the GST ITC-02 Form was not available for electronic filing, neither the applicant nor TDN could be held responsible for not submitting Form GST ITC-02 electronically on the department’s common portal, the Court stated.
Consequently, the Division Bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain asked the respondents to regard the manually filed forms via the TDS as expeditiously as feasible.
Read Also: Bombay HC Permits Assessee to Correct GSTR-1 Bonafide Error
The bench therefore specified that if on the due consideration of manual forms the respondents still discovered that the ITC of Rs 18,30,58,995 was not due or was claimed erroneously of and used by the applicant, they are free to pass a relevant order.
Case Facts
The applicant has the business of providing internet services, entered in the Business Transfer Agreement (BTA) with Tikona Digital Networks (TDN), where TDN business was transferred before the applicant as a present concern. Hence TDN approached the AO jurisdictional notifying them of the non-availability of Form ITC-02 functionality on the department’s common portal.
TDN has the objective to transfer unused credit in its electronic credit ledger on the date of slump sale before the applicant. However as Form ITC-02 was not available till now on the GSTIN portal for filing, TDN can not follow with the electronic filing need of the mentioned form.
The applicant in the second half of the year 2017 claimed the ITC to the tune of Rs 18.30 crores. As the respondents do not incur the available electronic facility to file Form GST ITC-02, the applicant has furnished the form manually.
The applicant has received a notice after 6 years alleging that the applicant has erroneously claimed and used the ITC of Rs 18 crores, as the applicant manually furnished the forms. Therefore the applicant has approached the HC contesting the notice and the demand asked from the Respondent department.
High Court Observations
The Bench remarked that the only claim made in the show cause notice is related to the non-electronic submission of Form GST ITC-02 on the department’s shared portal.
The Bench expressed the view that these allegations would be valid if the Department’s shared portal were operating properly, allowing TDN or the petitioners to submit Form GST ITC-02 electronically through it.
The Bench acknowledged that the TDN or the petitioner was unable to submit Form GST ITC-02 on the department’s shared portal during the applicable period due to functionality problems associated with that portal.
Therefore the Bench noted that after the same has been considered that Form GST ITC-02 was not e-filed on the shared portal of the department as it was not operational to generate and accept the Forms, the issuance of the Show cause notice (SCN) is to practice of excessive jurisdiction under the CGST act and the rules.
The Bench noted that the petitioner only claimed the ITC after the CA’s certificate was submitted, which confirmed that the business transfer from TDN to the Petitioner included specific provisions for transferring liabilities.
Respondents can have processed the forms and wished on the issued of ITC if they had problems with the Form GST ITC-02 or GSTR-3B manual filing, the bench said.
The bench outlines that the respondents on the specious plea can not have avoided processing the manual return that Section 18(3) & Rule 41(1) of the CGST Act and Rules identify only electronic filing and not manual filing.
Similarly, the Bench determined that the Allahabad High Court observed that, at the time when BTA transferred its business along with liabilities to the petitioner, the option to file Form IT-02 was not accessible on the department’s common portal, thus ruling that the petitioner should not be denied the ITC.
Moreover, the Gujarat High Court, Delhi High Court, and Bombay High Court determined under the same conditions that the Department’s failure to recognize and transfer the ITC owed to the petitioner was highly unlawful, the Bench noted.
It was therefore specified that the respondents were bound from duty to take cognizance of the decisions of the Allahabad, Gujarat, and Delhi High Courts in dealing with the almost same problem related to the applicant, the Bench quashed the SCN asking for the ITC and permitted the petition of the taxpayer.
It was specified by the Bench that if the respondent concludes that the Input tax credit (ITC) was claimed erroneously. Then the respondents can take action by complying with natural justice.
| Case Title | Tikona Infinet Private Limited Vs. Union of India |
| Citation | NO. 16258 OF 2023 |
| Date | 08.10.2024 |
| Counsel For Petitioner | Mr Prasad Paranjape, Bhavya Varma |
| Counsel For Respondent | Mr J B Mishra, Mr Ram Ochani |
| Bombay High Court | Read Order |
