According to the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the GST department is not permitted to keep the disputed money that was unintentionally paid to them.
The division bench of Justice C. Praveen Kumar and Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu tracked, the amounts furnished by the taxpayer who has filed the wrong information could not be treated as a tax due from the council or the respondents, statutory. The GST council could not be mentioned that the claim of the applicant would be limited in its ability.
The applicant has the business of supplying telecom pipe-laying services in the state of Telangana, like M/s. Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, Kandlakoya Village, and Medchal Mandal of Telangana State, whose other office is located in Mumbai. The applicant has provided the services of cable laying at Kandlakoya in Telangana State.
The petitioner, however, incorrectly generated two tax bills for the provision of cable-laying services to Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, Mumbai. The two additional tax bills for the month of June 2018 to M/s. Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, Mumbai, disclosed the IGST due and also provided a credit note lowering the original supply consideration charged in the two tax invoices.
The GST Identification Number (GSTIN) of Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, Mumbai, rather than the GSTIN of Telangana, was accidentally entered when entering the data and returns information on the GST common site.
The state of Telangana had access to an interstate supply of cable-laying services. It was just an unintentional error made throughout the GST regime’s tax periods. Due to a human error, the Telangana receiver of the petitioner’s cable-laying services was unable to receive credit for the IGST that was paid by the petitioner. The petitioner attempted to correct the error in May 2020 after realizing it but it does not get succeed.
There was no question, the petitioner said, that a human error was made when entering the GST common site. Only in May 2020 did the petitioner realize the error and make multiple unsuccessful attempts to correct it since the GST common site did not permit such repair.
The department argued that since Section 54 of the CGST Act required a two-year limitation period, the petitioner’s claim was prohibited by limitation and that it was the petitioner’s duty to follow the procedure provided in the Circular for 2019. The petitioner cannot be forced to abide by the Circular of the year 2019, which prohibits manual filing, the court said.
Certain actions that are difficult to accomplish cannot be forced upon the petitioner. The court instructed the respondents to make instructions in conformity with the law within four weeks and the petitioner to submit a manual application for a return of the amount to which he was entitled.
| Case Title | Varshan Enterprises Versus Office of GST Council |
| Citation | Writ Petition No. 10637 Of 2021 |
| Date | 09.12.2022 |
| Appellant | J.N.V. Suresh Kumar |
| Respondent | Suresh Kumar Routhu |
| Andhra Pradesh High Court | Read Order |
