GST
TRT-2025-
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Date:-09-12-22
In:-
Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:-
Order Date – 09 December 2022
Facts –
- The Petitioner, M/s. Varshan Enterprises, is engaged in business of supplying telecom pipe laying services in the State of Telangana, like M/s.Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, Kandlakoya Village, Medchal Mandal of Telangana State, whose another office is located at Mumbai.
- The petitioner supplied the cable laying services at Kandlakoya of Telangana State. However, the petitioner erroneously issued two tax invoices covering the said supply of cable laying services to M/s. Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, Mumbai and two other tax invoices in the month of June, 2018 declaring the IGST liability and also issued a credit note No.10 for total value of Rs.3,11,619=12 (with IGST Rs.47,535=12) reducing the original supply consideration charged in the said two tax invoices issued by them to M/s. Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, Mumbai for the tax period June, 2018. The tax invoices issued in March, 2018 are returned in Form GSTR 3B for the tax period of April, 2018 and the petitioner furnished details of such invoices in Form GSTR-1 for June, 2018 and they are returned in both Form GSTR-1 for the quarter ending 30.06.2018.
- While filing the return in the GST common portal, the GSTIN of M/s.Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, Mumbai inadvertently keyed in instead of the GSTIN of M/s.Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, Kandlakoya. In reality, they are inter-state supplies of cable laying services in the State of Telangana.
- After realizing this mistake in May 2020, the petitioner tried to rectify this mistake but the common portal did not allowed as the time limit was only till 20.10.2019.
Issue –
- Whether there is any option to rectify such mistake in the return?
Order –
- The Hon’ble High Court finds that the respondents are compelling the petitioner to follow the Circular of the year 2019 which is virtually impracticable to follow. When Rule 97A of the CGST Rules also permits manual filing, restriction in Circular, dated 18.11.2019, seeking refund by electronic mode only may not be proper. Hence the respondents cannot contend that the claim, if any, of the petitioner, is barred by limitation.
- Thus the petitioner cannot be compelled to follow the Circular of the year 2019, which debarred the petitioner from manual filing. The petitioner cannot be compelled to do certain things which are impossible to be performed.
- The Writ petition is allowed by directing the petitioner to make an application in manual form for refund of the amount to which he is entitled to and the respondents are directed to pass orders in accordance with law
Download Case Law
