Imperial Dyeing Ltd VS State Of Gujarat

printing operations were purchased by it prior to the introduction of the GST Act. The petitioner availed input tax credit (ITC) on the VAT paid on such capital goods under the VAT Act. However, upon the introduction of the GST Act, transitional provisions were made to allow the transition of credits from the VAT regime to the GST regime.

1. The petitioner contends that despite meeting all the conditions and fulfilling all the requirements, it was denied the benefit of transition of credit on the capital goods purchased before the GST regime. The denial of such benefit has caused significant financial hardship to the petitioner as it has resulted in double taxation on the same transaction.

2. The petitioner has approached the appropriate authorities seeking redressal of this grievance, but to no avail. Hence, the present petition before this Hon’ble Court praying for appropriate directions to the respondents to allow the transition of credit on the capital goods purchased prior to the introduction of the GST Act, in accordance with the transitional provisions provided under the said Act.

3. The respondents, on the other hand, contend that the petitioner’s case does not fall within the ambit of the transitional provisions as the capital goods in question were purchased before the GST Act came into force. They argue that transitional provisions are meant for ensuring smooth transition from the previous tax regime to the GST regime and cannot be applied to transactions predating the GST Act.

4. Furthermore, the respondents assert that allowing transition of credit on such capital goods would result in unjust enrichment for the petitioner, as it has already availed the benefit of input tax credit under the VAT regime. They argue that permitting double benefit would be contrary to the principles of law and equity.

5. This matter raises important questions regarding the interpretation and application of transitional provisions under the GST Act. It requires a careful examination of the legislative intent behind such provisions and their compatibility with principles of equity and justice. The decision in this case will not only impact the petitioner but also set a precedent for similar cases involving transition of credits under the GST regime

The petitioner is a business engaged in the dyeing and printing of fabrics on a job work basis. They were duly registered under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (VAT Act), and with the implementation of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act), they obtained registration under it as well.

The crux of the petitioner’s argument lies in the treatment of certain capital goods, machinery specifically, procured for use in their operations between April and June 2017. These capital goods were intended for use in the dyeing and printing process of fabrics. While under the VAT Act, the fabrics they dealt with were exempt from tax, the introduction of the GST Act changed the taxation landscape, rendering these fabrics taxable goods.

The petitioner asserts that under the VAT Act, there existed no prohibition against claiming proportionate Input Tax Credit (ITC) concerning capital goods, even if they were used partly for manufacturing taxable goods and partly for exempt goods. Furthermore, they cite Section 18(1)(d) of the GST Act, which explicitly allows for ITC in such scenarios, particularly when exempt goods transition to being taxable.

In essence, the fabrics manufactured by the petitioner became taxable goods under the GST Act. Consequently, they sought to claim Input Tax Credit for the tax paid on the capital goods utilized in their production process. This claim hinges on the understanding that since their output became taxable under the new regime, they should be entitled to the corresponding benefits, including ITC for the taxes paid on inputs, such as capital goods.

The petitioner’s case underscores the complexities businesses faced during the transition from the VAT Act to the GST Act, especially concerning the treatment of inputs and the eligibility for tax credits. It raises broader questions about the continuity of tax benefits across regulatory shifts and the interpretation of laws governing input tax credits under evolving tax regimes.

petitioner, engaged in dyeing and printing fabrics on a job work basis, operates under both the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (VAT Act) and the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act). The transition to the GST regime from July 1, 2017, led to complexities regarding tax credits on capital goods used in their operations.

During the transition period from April to June 2017, the petitioner purchased machinery for dyeing and printing fabrics, which were intended for use in both taxable and exempted fabric production. While under the VAT Act, the fabrics were exempt from tax, they became taxable goods under the GST Act.

The petitioner asserts that under the VAT Act, there was no explicit prohibition against claiming Input Tax Credit (ITC) proportionate to the usage of capital goods for both taxable and exempted goods. Additionally, they cite Section 18(1)(d) of the GST Act, which permits ITC for capital goods when exempt goods become taxable.

The fabrics produced by the petitioner were classified as taxable goods under the GST Act. Consequently, they claimed transitional tax credit for the VAT paid on the purchase of capital goods. This credit was carried forward into the GST Electronic Credit Ledger by filing Form GST TRAN-1, without having utilized it under the VAT Act.

However, an assessment was conducted under the VAT Act for the period from April 1, 2017, to June 30, 2017. The petitioner’s grievance arises from the fact that the assessment notice only covered the VAT Act, and the subsequent order issued on January 12, 2021, disallowed the transitional tax credit claimed under the GST Act. This resulted in a substantial tax demand along with interest and penalties.

The petitioner contends that the denial of transitional tax credit was unjust as they had followed the prescribed procedures under both the VAT and GST Acts. They argue that the capital goods were indeed used in the production of taxable goods under the GST Act, warranting the claimed transitional tax credit.

In essence, the petitioner seeks relief from the adverse order passed under the VAT Act, emphasizing their compliance with the GST regime’s provisions and the legitimate entitlement to transitional tax credit for capital goods used in their operations.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: