M/S Anupam Electricals And Electronics v. State of U.P. and Another

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 18

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: It is the case of the petitioner that it is a Proprietorship Firm duly registered under the Goods and Service Tax Act with GST TIN No. 09AEXPA7281G121. The petitioner Firm was initially registered under the Composition Scheme for the Financial Year 2022-23, however, with the increase in its turn over of the Financial Year April 2022 to December, 2022 it converted into normal scheme after submitting a withdrawal from the Composition Scheme. On account of the shifting into the normal scheme on 07.01.2023 the petitioner stands entitled to avail the ITC in respect of Stock of inputs in the form of semi finished/ finished goods and Capital goods held by it on the date of the withdrawal and furnish statement within 30 days in form GSTITC-01 on the common portal. However due to technical glitches on the GST Portal the petitioner was unable to file the ITC-01 FORM to avail…
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

The writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to condone the delay and permit the petitioner to file ITC-01 FORM to avail its eligible ITC or input lying on the stock as on date. A further prayer commanding the respondent no. 2 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 27.04.2023 within the shortest time frame fixed by the Court, has been prayed for.

Shri Ankur Agarwal learned counsel for the respondents in opposition to the writ petition submits that admittedly the delay has occassioned at the instance of the petitioner and he may not be entitled to the benefits as claimed. He however does not dispute the indulgence granted by the Gujarat High Court in similar circumstances.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record as also the case laws relied upon by the petitioner. We find that the case of the petitioner is on the same footing as the petitioners before the Gujarat High Court. We are of the opinion that the petitioner is equally circumstanced and is entitled to the relief as has been granted by the Gujarat High Court to the petitioners before it particularly in view of the fact that no contrary case law has been cited by the counsel for the respondents.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to do the needful and ensure that the writ petitioner is permitted to upload the Form ITC-01 so as to enable him to claim the Input Tax Credit worth Rs. 31,18,718/- as stated in para 13 of the writ petition) under Section 18 (1) (c) of the Act. Let the exercise be done within 4 weeks from the date of service of certified copy of the order of this Court upon the concerned respondents.

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

Heard Shri Pranjal Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ankur Agarwal learned counsel for State respondents.

petitioner dis-entitling him to such claim. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon two decisions of the Gujrat High Court in R/Special Civil Application No. 2560 of 2020 (M/s Pradip Chemanlal Mevada vs. Union of India) and R/Special Civil Application No. 13091 of 2020 (Ezzy Electricals Vs. State of Gujarat) wherein the petitions were disposed of by directing the respondents to do the needful and see to it that the petitioner is able to claim the Input Tax Credit by uploading the Form ITC-01. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that similar relief may also be granted to the petitioner.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The judgment does not separately label the respondent’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

The concise order integrates its reasoning with the operative directions. The complete packaged record controls.

Operative decision and relief

The operative relief must be read from the final paragraphs of the complete packaged judgment.

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with M/S Anupam Electricals And Electronics v. State of U.P. and Another concerns issue and context: it is the case of the petitioner that it is a proprietorship firm duly registered under the goods and service tax act with gst tin no. 09aexpa7281g121. the petitioner firm was initially registered under the composition scheme for the financial year 2022-23, however, with the increase in its turn over of the financial year april 2022 to december, 2022 it converted into normal scheme after submitting a withdrawal from the composition scheme. on account of the shifting into the normal scheme on 07.01.2023 the petitioner stands entitled to avail the itc in respect of stock of inputs in the form of semi finished/ finished goods and capital goods held by it on the date of the withdrawal and furnish statement within 30 days in form gstitc-01 on the common portal. however due to technical glitches on the gst portal the petitioner was unable to file the itc-01 form to avail… The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in WRIT TAX No. 881 of 2023.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Disposed” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: Issue and context: It is the case of the petitioner that it is a Proprietorship Firm duly registered under the Goods and Service Tax Act with GST TIN No. 09AEXPA7281G121. The petitioner Firm was initially registered under the Composition Scheme for the Financial Year 2022-23, however, with the increase in its turn over of the Financial Year April 2022 to December, 2022 it converted into normal scheme after submitting a withdrawal from the Composition Scheme. On account of the shifting into the normal scheme on 07.01.2023 the petitioner stands entitled to avail the ITC in respect of Stock of inputs in the form of semi finished/ finished goods and Capital goods held by it on the date of the withdrawal and furnish statement within 30 days in form GSTITC-01 on the common portal. However due to technical glitches on the GST Portal the petitioner was unable to file the ITC-01 FORM to avail… Its practical value lies in the way the Allahabad High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 18—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is High Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of GST statutory provision - Section 18 and the decision date 2023-08-29; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is M/S Anupam Electricals And Electronics v. State of U.P. and Another, the proceeding is WRIT TAX No. 881 of 2023, and the decision is dated 2023-08-29. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,Chief Justice; Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.. A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with GST statutory provision - Section 18. The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Disposed. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_SUBSEQUENT_TREATMENT_CHECK_PENDING. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• GST statutory provision - Section 18 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• M/s SA Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Union of India and Others — Allahabad High Court · Disposed
• M/s Soraza Recycling Private Limited v. Union of India and Others — Allahabad High Court · Disposed
• ASHISH GUPTA v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DIVISION SHAHDARA EAST DELHI CGST & ORS. — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• M/S MATHUR POLYMERS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. — Delhi High Court · Disposed

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 792 judgments
• Explore Input Tax Credit

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_TEXT_SANITIZED_RENDITION · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY