Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata v. Addl Commissioner, Cgst And Cx, Kolkata North Commissionerate And ANR.

14.01.2025 Item No.18 gd/ssd FMA/743/2024 SYAMA PRASAD MOOKERJEE PORT, KOLKATA VS ADDL COMMISSIONER, CGST AND CX, KOLKATA NORTH COMMISSIONERATE AND ANR.

IA NO: CAN/1/2024 Mr. Sujit Ghosh, ld. Sr. Adv..

Ms. Mannat Waraich, Ms. Anshika Agarwal, Mr. Pujon Chatterjee, Mr. Sutosom Bhattacharyya ..for the Appellant.

Mr. Vipul Kundalia, ld. Sr. Adv..

Mr. Anindya Kanan, Mr. D. Chaudhuri ..for CGST Authorities.

1. We have heard the learned advocates for either of the parties.

2. Reference may be made to the order dated 25.6.2024 by which the writ petition which was dismissed was held to be maintainable. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said order the following had been noted and recorded:

"4. From the comparison of the two returns, i.e. Page 76 and Page 136 of the Stay petition, we find that PART A which deals with the general information there is no discrepancy.

However, with regard to PART B, viz. the value of taxable services and service tax payable, the figures reflected do not tally with PART B of the revised return which was filed on 21.07.2017. According to the appellant, when the data was populated, there is error wherein PART B of the revised return was not

duly populated into the domain of the Department. Admittedly, this issue cannot be resolved by the adjudicating authority or for that matter, the learned Tribunal and so far the writ court is concerned, it can issue appropriate directions, if on facts, it is found that the submission of the appellant is correct to the appropriate authority viz. the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, through Directorate General of Systems & Data Management, the 2nd respondent herein for necessary rectification.

5. Therefore, we are of the view that the writ petition was maintainable and we entertain this appeal. The 2nd respondent is directed to furnish the necessary instructions. The 1st respondent being the Additional Commissioner, CGST & CX, Kolkata North Commissionerate is directed to clarify the facts and file a report in the form of an affidavit and the 2nd respondent shall also produce their response to the plea by the appellant requesting correction of the information uploaded in the Portal. Since we have entertained this appeal, no coercive action shall be initiated against the appellant for enforcing the demand which has been crystallized in the order in original dated 16.11.2023."

3. In response to the directions issued in the above order, the Assistant Commissioner (Legal), Kolkata North Commissionerate, CGST & CX who has been authorized by the respondent nos.1 and 2 has filed an affidavit dated 10th December, 2024 disclosing certain facts.

4. For better appreciation, paragraphs 4 and 5 of the affidavit are quoted hereinbelow:

"4. That in compliance of the order aforesaid dated 25th June, 2024 passed by this Hon'ble Court, it is humbly submitted that with the rollout of GST, the department moved to the

new Integrated ACES- GST Application and migrated the data of Central Excise and Service Tax to the new application. The data relating to the Service Tax returns filed in respect of M/s Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Port, Kolkata having Service Tax Registration no. AAA JK 0361 LS T002 is verified in the databases of both the new integrated ACES - GST Application and the Legacy ACES Application is tabulated below:

TABLE-A OPENING BALANACE RETURN/ MONTH RETURN YEAR CLOSIN 28745834 300455 28745834 300455 28745834 341481 28745834 341481 28745834 484241 28745834 484341 48434172 388382 48434172 388382 38838268 303951 38838268 303951

30395135 375368 30395135 375368 Data as per Legacy ACES Application:

TABLE-B I. October 2016- March 2017(original) MONTHYEAR CREDIT TYPE OPENING BALANCE CLOSIN BALANC 10-2016 CENVAT 28745834 300455 11-2016 CENVAT 30045541 341481 12-2016 CENVAT 34148171 484241 01-2017 CENVAT 48434172 388382 02-2017 CENVAT 38838268 303951 03-2017 CENVAT 30395135 375368 II. October 2016-March 2017( Revised) MONTHYEAR CREDIT TYPE OPENING BALANCE CLOSI NG BALAN CE

10-2016 CENVAT 28745834 341283 11-2016 CENVAT 34128385 395149 12-2016 CENVAT 39514987 595931 01-2017 CENVAT 59593150 486427 02-2017 CENVAT 48642700 711980 03-2017 CENVAT 71198028 748925 III. October 2016-March 2017 (Reviewed) MONTHYEAR CREDIT TYPE OPENING BALANCE CLOSI NG BALAN CE 10-2016 CENVAT 28745834 341283 11-2016 CENVAT 34128385 395149 12-2016 CENVAT 39514987 595931 01-2017 CENVAT 59593150 486427 02-2017 CENVAT 48642700 711980 03-2017 CENVAT 71198028 748925

5. That on examination of data retrieved from both the systems for the said period i.e October 2016 to March 2017 it is confirmed that the appellant has filed the revised return for the period, however, data pertaining to the

revised return have not migrated completely to the new integrated ACES-GST Application system and therefore the data pertaining to the original return is being reflected in the new system."

5. In the light of the above stand taken by the department, the case of the appellant/assessee has to be accepted and necessary rectification has to be done. 6.

Though Mr.

Ghosh, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant prayed for quashing the proceeding, we are of the view that in the light of the stand taken by the department it is the department which has to be rectify the mistake and pass a revised order.

7.

Mr.

Ghosh, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned order which was challenged in the writ petition has to be set aside.

8. Pursuant to the stand taken by the department, the Portal has to be created and thereafter a revised order has to be passed.

9. Thus, technically the learned senior advocate is right and for such reason, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order with a direction to the authorities to make the necessary correction in the Portal and issue a revised order accepting the stand taken by the appellant/assessee.

10. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the server copy of this order.

11. It is made clear that the matter is sent back to the department for compliance of the above direction and this should not be misconstrued as a remand of the matter for initiation of the fresh proceedings.

(T. S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)