The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently allowed the assessee to file the Goods and Services Tax (GST) refund application in manual offline mode as the Rule 97A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules does allow manual filing for refund claims.
The petitioner is registered as a taxable person under the CGST Act, 2017 and The APGST Act, 2017, with a Goods and Services Tax Identification Number (GSTIN).
The petitioner falls under the jurisdiction of the Bhimavaram Central GST Range, which is overseen by the Superintendent of Central Goods and Services Tax. The petitioner regularly files their returns and reports their intra-state and inter-state supplies of goods and services through the common portal, as mandated by the APGST Act and CGST Act, 2017, since July 2017.
The petitioner’s business involves supplying telecom pipe laying services in the state of Telangana, specifically to M/s. Vodafone Mobile Services Limited in Kandlakoya Village, Medchal Mandal. However, in June 2018, the petitioner mistakenly issued two tax invoices for the cable laying services to M/s. Vodafone Mobile Services Limited in Mumbai, instead of Kandlakoya, Telangana.
They also by an inadvertent mistake, issued two additional tax invoices in June 2018, declaring the IGST liability, and a credit note for a total value of Rs.3,11,619=12 (with IGST Rs.47,535=12), which reduced the original supply consideration charged in the two tax invoices to M/s. Vodafone Mobile Services Limited in Mumbai for the tax period of June 2018.
The tax invoices issued in March 2018 were returned in Form GSTR 3B for the tax period of April 2018, and the petitioner furnished details of these invoices in Form GSTR-1 for June 2018. They were returned in both Form GSTR-1 for the quarter ending on 30 June 2018.
The petitioner has stated that there is no dispute regarding the fact that a human error was made while entering data into the GST common portal. However, the petitioner was only able to identify the error in May 2020, and despite multiple attempts to rectify the mistake, they were unsuccessful as the GST common portal did not allow for such corrections.
When the petitioner submitted a letter on 17 February 2021, raising various concerns, they were instructed by Respondent No. 2 to follow the Circular dated 18 November 2019. However, the petitioner has stated that following this circular is impractical, as the GST common portal does not permit the necessary rectification.
The respondent revenue, on the other hand, submitted that it is the duty of the petitioner to follow the procedure as contemplated in the Circular of the year 2019 and his claim falls under Section 54 of the CGST Act, which prescribe the period of limitation of two years and the petitioners claim is barred by limitation.
The Bench of Justice C Praveen Kumar and Justice A V Ravindra Babu observed that, “As the Circular of the year 2019 restricts only electronic filing and as the contention of the respondents that the claim of the petitioner is barred by limitation is not acceptable, the respondents cannot retain the amount, which was paid by the petitioner.”
Under the circumstances, the court opined that the petitioner is entitled to the relief.
The Division bench thereby allowed the writ petition, setting aside the communication of the Superintendent of Central Goods and Services Tax, Bhimavaram Range and allowing the petitioner to file a manual application for the GST refund claim.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
