Madras HC: Substantial benefit under MEIS scheme cannot be denied for inadvertent human error
During the filing of an application under the MEIS Scheme on the EDI portal, the Petitioner had inadvertently selected the intent for claim of benefit as ‘No’ instead of ‘yes’. Accordingly, the claim of MEIS had been rejected by the Revenue. Aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred a Writ before the Madras HC seeking quashing of the order rejecting benefit under the MEIS Scheme.
The HC observed that the Petitioner had unintentionally made an error while uploading the shipping bills on the EDI system and the error is hyper-technical, inadvertent and a human error. The HC further observed that the intention of the Petitioner was clearly expressed in the shipping bills. Basis the above observations, the HC set aside the order passed by the Revenue and held that the Petitioner was entitled to the benefit under the MEIS Scheme and also directed the Respondent to grant consequential benefits.
K.I. International Limited [W.P. No. 16328 of 2020 dated 23 June 2021]
Authors’ Note:
It is now a settled principle that the Revenue shall not withhold substantial benefits to an assessee on account of hyper-technical inadvertent errors. Notably, the Bombay HC in the case of Portescap India Private Limited [Writ Petition No. 2532 of 2019] it was held that such errors are a procedural defect and curable considering the fundamental objective of the scheme. However, the Revenue authorities seldom take note of such judgements before rejecting claims. This only adds to the litigation burden on the assessees and the higher judicial authorities.
Disclaimer:
The information provided in this update is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal opinion or advice. Readers are requested to seek formal legal advice prior to acting upon any of the information provided herein. This update is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or corporate body. There can be no assurance that the judicial/ quasi judicial authorities may not take a position contrary to the views mentioned hereinrra quis.
