Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. While keying in the said details and returns information in the GST common portal, the GSTIN of M/s.Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, Mumbai i.e., 27AAACS4457Q1ZQ inadvertently keyed in instead of the GSTIN of M/s.Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, Kandlakoya, Medchal Mandal, Rangareddy District, Telangana. In reality, they are inter-state supplies of cable laying services in the State of Telangana. This is purely an inadvertent mistake committed in the tax periods of the GST regime. Because of this human error, the actual recipient of cable laying services from the petitioner at Telangana is not able to claim the credit of the IGST paid by the petitioner. After realising this mistake, the petitioner tried to rectify this mistake in May, 2020 but in vain. The GST common portal is not permitting the same, because the time available for rectification of such mistake is only up to 20.10.2019. The petitioner realized this mistake in May, 2020 when M/s.Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, Kandlakoya, refused to pay the GST amount by correspondingly reducing the subsequent supply consideration payable by it.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that there is no dispute that a human error was committed in keying the GST common portal. The petitioner could realize the mistake only in May, 2020 and thereafter made several attempts to rectify the mistake but in vain as the GST common portal did not allow for such rectification. Accordingly, when the petitioner addressed a letter, dated 17.02.2021, raising various contentions, the second respondent issued the impugned reply, dated 26.02.2021, directing the petitioner to follow the Circular, dated 18.11.2019. It is impracticable for the petitioner to follow the said Circular as after realization of the human error in May, 2020, the GST common portal is not permitting such rectification. He would further contend that the real recipient of service of goods is M/s.Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, Kandlakoya, Telangana but not M/s.Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, Mumbai. So, under Article 265 of the Constitution of India, no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Under Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a person to whom money has been paid or anything delivered by mistake or under coercion imposed, shall repay or return it. The amounts that were mistakenly paid, as above, cannot be taken as the amount payable legally to the respondents. He would further contend that by virtue of the Circular, dated 18.11.2019, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, with effect from 26.09.2019, permitted certain types of refunds through electronic mode only, which are listed in Para No.3 from (a) to (l) and the claim of the petitioner would not come under the said purview. Even otherwise, when Rule 97(A) of the CGST Rules, 2017 permitted manual filing, the respondents had no authority to restrict the filing of refunds through electronic mode only. If the respondents permit manual filing, the petitioner would have been in a position to submit his claim manually successfully. So, the inability of the petitioner to submit his claim successfully through electronic mode by following the Circular, does not enable the respondents to contend that the claim of the petitioner is barred by limitation. The amounts that are paid by the petitioner cannot be brought under the purview of the tax legally paid and the amount was remitted on account of a human error, as such the procedure under Section 54 of the CGST Act has no application. Even otherwise, the petitioner was prevented from rectifying the mistake, as the above Circular did not permit manual filing under Rule 97A of the CGST Rules.

17. In Pentacle Plant Machineries (second supra), the petitioner sought to issue a writ of Mandamus to rectify the mistake in GSTR-1 return, wherein instead of the GST number of the purchaser in Andhra Pradesh, GST number of the purchaser in Uttar Pradesh was mentioned. The Writ Petition was allowed in that regard. The High Court of Madras held that in the absence of enabling mechanism, the assessee should not be prejudiced from availing credit to which they are otherwise legitimately entitled to. The error committed by the petitioner is an inadvertent human error which the petitioner should be in a position to rectify the same in the absence of an effective enabling mechanism under statue.