Karnataka High Court
M/S S V Halavagali And Sons vs The Superintendent on 3 November, 2023
Bench: Anant Ramanath Hegde
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:12831
WP No. 102048 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 102048 OF 2023 (T-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S S V HALAVAGALI AND SONS
R/BY ITS PARTNER SHRI SHIDLINGAPPA
S/O CHANDRAKANTH HALAVAGALI,
AGE 53 YEARS, R/O NAMJOSHI ROAD,
GADAG 582101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H R KAMBIYAVAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT
OF CENTRAL EXCISE,
'A' RANGE, BULLA BUILDING,
GUJJARA BASADI, MAIN ROAD,
GADAG 582103.
2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR OF CENTRAL TAX 1,
Digitally signed by
QUEENS RD, VASANTH NAGAR,
MOHANKUMAR B
SHELAR BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560001.
Date: 2023.11.07
15:48:04 +0530
3. THE PRINCIPAL ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL
OF SYSTEMS AND DATA MANAGEMENT,
GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE GST BHAVAN,
NO 26/1, MAHATHMA GANDHI ROAD,
NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI -34,
TAMILNADU.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:12831
WP No. 102048 of 2023
LGSTO-350, GADAG, 2ND FLOOR,
NISARGA BUILDING, MULGUND ROAD,
GADAG -582103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHIVARAJ S BALLOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI.SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, AGA FOR R4)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE
COURTI TO I) ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR IN THE LIKE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER
BEARING NO. BEL-CGST-000-DWD-SUP-SHJ-02-2022-23-GST-
TRAN-1 DATED 20.02.2023, PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO. 1
VIDE ANNEXURE-K; II) ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR IN THE
LIKE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR DIRECTION TO THE
RESPONDENT NO. 1, TO CONSIDER THE REPLY DATED
13.02.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-J.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner is assailing the order dated
20.02.2023 passed by respondent No.1-Superintendent of
Central Excise, Gadag and has also sought a direction against
respondent No.1 to consider the reply dated 13.02.2023.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:12831
WP No. 102048 of 2023
3. The petitioner is a partnership firm registered under
the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner is
engaged in supply of goods coming under the Chapter 8432,
31010010 and 10091090. Respondent No.1 has issued show
cause notice dated 09.12.2022 on the premise that GST returns
submitted by the petitioner were the subject matter of scrutiny
and sought explanation from the petitioner.
4. The petitioner has replied to the said notice and
claimed CENVAT Credit of Central Excise duty on the stock of
goods held on 30.06.2017, for Rs.6,18,796/-. Pursuant to the
reply, hearing was fixed on 24.01.2023. Petitioner further
claims that he has produced additional documents in support of
his defence. Thereafter respondent No.1 issued one more
notice dated 06.02.2023 on the premise that the petitioner has
filed TRAN-1 claim under Table 7(d) in terms of Rule 117(4) of
Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and took a view
that the petitioner is not entitled to CENVAT credit.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that he made a claim
under column '7(d)' inadvertently, instead of making a TRAN-1
NC: 2023:KHC-D:12831
WP No. 102048 of 2023
claim under column '7(b)'. The petitioner however submits that
error is inadvertent and he has the documents to support his
claim for necessary credit under the Head '7(b)'.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit
that the impugned order is available under Section 107 of CGST
Act.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply would
contend that the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has dealt
with similar issue where the claim is inadvertently made under
the inapplicable head and the Writ Court entertained the
petition and issued a direction to the respondent-Authority to
verify the claim of the petitioner and if the claim is found to be
supported by materials, to grant necessary relief as available
under law. This Court has perused the aforementioned
judgment.
8. From the aforementioned judgment, in W.P.(MD)
No.15531/2020 and W.M.P.(M.D.) NO.13042/2020, it can be
noticed that in the said case, the claim was made under
Column 7(d) of the Form instead of 7(a) and while allowing the
writ petition, the Court directed the respondents to forward the
NC: 2023:KHC-D:12831
WP No. 102048 of 2023
petitioner's application to the concerned authority and directed
the concerned authority to verify the correctness of the claim
made and it further directed that if satisfied with respect to the
claim, the authority shall grant the relief sought in the writ
petition.
9. This Court has also perused the records in the case.
The petitioner makes claim that he ought to have filed returns
under by making a claim under Column 7(b) and erroneously
he made a claim under Column 7(d). Since the petitioner has
claimed that he has necessary invoices and documents to
support his claim under column '7(b)', this Court is of the view
that the impugned order is to be set aside and matter is
remitted to respondent No.1.
10. Respondent No.1 shall consider the claim of the
petitioner under Column 7(b) of CGST Rules, 2017, if there are
supporting documents to make claim under Column 7(b). If the
claim is established then the consequential relief should follow.
11. With the above observations, petition is disposed
of.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:12831
WP No. 102048 of 2023
12. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed
any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner. The
authority shall consider the merits of the claim of the petitioner
in accordance with law.
13. Annexure-K is set aside, and consequential order
Annexure-L notice issued pursuant to Annexure-K is also set
aside.
14. Respondent No.1 shall process petitioner's claim
within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KGK
