HC Directed GST Authorities to Condone Delay and Permitted Assessee to File Form ITC-01
- Blog|News|GST & Customs|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 31 July, 2024
Latest from Taxmann
Case Details: Hari Om Arora v. Union of India - [2024] 164 taxmann.com 700 (Calcutta)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.
- Debdutta Raha & Abhishek Bhandari for the Petitioner.
- Md. T.M. Siddiqui, Tanoy Chakraborty, Saptak Sanyal, Vipul Kundalia, Ms Sangita Das & Anindya Kanon for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee filed an application for transfer of GST file from ‘composition scheme’ to ‘normal scheme’ which was duly sanctioned. It was required to file and upload input tax credit certificate within 30 days from the date of approval. However, it couldn’t be uploaded in time for reasons of pandemic and medical ground of CA of the assessee.
It approached authorities for condonation of delay but the authorities did not condone delay. Thereafter, it filed writ petition and the Coordinate Bench had directed authorities to consider application for condonation but the Joint Commissioner held that he did not come across any provision in Act or Rules which permitted condonation of delay. It again filed petition against the rejection of application for condonation of delay.
High Court Held
The Honorable High Court noted that as per Rule 40(1)(b) of CGST Rules, the registered person shall within a period of 30 days from the date of becoming eligible to avail an input tax credit or within such further period as may be extended by the Commissioner by a notification in this behalf shall make a declaration, electronically, on the common portal in Form ITC-01. This provision specifically authorizes the Commissioner to extend the time. Therefore, the Court held that the department was directed to condone delay and permit assessee to file Form ITC-01.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Anupam Electricals & Electronics v. State of U.P., 2023:AHC:175105-DB., followed.
- Maqbul Ahmad v. Onkar Pratap Narain Singh, AIR 1935 PC 85, distinguished.
List of Cases Referred to
- Maqbul Ahmad & Ors. v. Onkar Pratap Narain Singh & Ors. AIR 1935 PC 85 (para 13).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied
Sign Up
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
Latest Books
Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
CA | CS | CMA
