Tvl. Kumaran Filaments (P) Ltd VS Commissioner of Central GST

The petitioner is requesting the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to review and annul an order identified as No.GST/01/2020. This order was issued by the third respondent on May 4, 2020, in connection with case number V/GST/15/31/2019-Adjn. The petitioner seeks the court’s intervention to call for the records related to this order and ultimately quash it. This implies that the petitioner believes the order is flawed or unjust and is seeking judicial review to overturn it.

The petitioner in this case seeks relief through a Writ of Certiorari, aiming to challenge and annul an order issued by the third respondent, identified by the order number GST/01/2020 dated May 4, 2020. The petitioner, a registered entity under GST with the GST No. 33AADCK6351N1ZB, asserts that it has consistently complied with its tax obligations by regularly filing monthly returns as required under the Goods and Services Tax Act (GST Act).

The crux of the petitioner’s argument revolves around unutilized CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 50,21080/- accrued during the pre-GST regime, specifically during the first quarter of 2017 (April, May, and June). Following the implementation of the GST regime on July 1, 2017, the petitioner claims to have transitioned this unutilized credit through the TRAN-1 form, as permissible under the law, thereby carrying it forward as Input Tax Credit into the new GST framework.

However, a complication arises when in May 2019, the second respondent notifies the petitioner of an alleged failure to file the ER-1 return for the aforementioned period in 2017. This discrepancy prompts the third respondent to take action, resulting in the issuance of the impugned order mentioned earlier.

In seeking redress, the petitioner contends that it did indeed file the required returns and asserts that any perceived lapse in compliance is either non-existent or attributable to procedural errors beyond its control. The petitioner contends that it diligently availed itself of the legal provisions for transitioning unutilized credits, and any contrary assertion by the authorities is erroneous and unjust.

Hence, the petitioner seeks intervention from the judicial system to review and nullify the impugned order, thereby reinstating its rights to the unutilized CENVAT credit as transitioned under the GST regime. The Writ of Certiorari is the legal mechanism through which the petitioner aims to achieve this objective, by compelling a scrutiny of the records and a subsequent quashing of the impugned order.

The petitioner in this legal case is seeking a Writ of Certiorari to review and annul an order issued by the third respondent, referenced as No.GST/01/2020. This order, dated 04.05.2020, is being challenged by the petitioner, a registered entity under GST with the GST No. 33AADCK6351N1ZB. The petitioner contends that it has consistently filed monthly returns under the Goods and Services Tax Act (GST Act).

The crux of the petitioner’s argument lies in the unavailed CENVAT (Central Value Added Tax) credit amounting to Rs.50,21080/- from the pre-GST regime. This credit, originally declared through ER-1 returns for the first quarter of 2017 (April to June), was later claimed under the GST regime through TRAN-1 and carried forward as Input Tax Credit.

However, in May 2019, the second respondent notified the petitioner of a failure to file the ER-1 returns for the aforementioned period and demanded the reversal of the claimed CENVAT credit. Subsequently, the petitioner attempted to rectify this by submitting the ER-1 returns online through the ACES portal. Despite receiving acknowledgment of successful upload, technical glitches prevented the filings from being accepted. Consequently, the petitioner maintains that it should still be entitled to carry forward the CENVAT credit under Section 140 of the GST Act.

The crux of the issue arises during an audit conducted by the second respondent, which disputes the validity of the uploaded ER-1 returns for April to June 2017. As a result, the petitioner was compelled to reverse the carried forward CENVAT credit of Rs.50,21,080/-. This action was taken due to the lack of alternative recourse available to the petitioner.

In summary, the petitioner is seeking relief through a Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned order, asserting its right to retain the CENVAT credit under the GST Act despite the technical hurdles encountered during the filing process.

The petitioner in this case, registered under GST with GST No. 33AADCK6351N1ZB, filed a petition seeking a Writ of Certiorari to challenge an order passed by the third respondent dated 04.05.2020, labeled as No.GST/01/2020. They claimed to have regularly submitted monthly returns under the GST Act.

They asserted that during the transition to the GST regime in July 2017, they had unutilized CENVAT credit worth Rs. 50,21,080 from the earlier tax regime. They attempted to claim this credit through TRAN-1, carrying it forward as Input Tax Credit under the new GST regime.

However, in May 2019, the second respondent informed the petitioner that their ER-1 return for the first quarter of 2017 (April to June) had not been filed, demanding immediate reversal of the claimed CENVAT credit. The petitioner promptly submitted the returns online, but technical issues prevented their successful filing. Despite efforts and acknowledgments of successful upload, the returns were rejected due to portal glitches.

As a result, during an audit, the second respondent insisted on reversing the claimed CENVAT credit, totaling Rs. 50,21,080, which the petitioner complied with by reversing it in their GSTR-3B for May 2019. Importantly, this credit had neither been utilized nor refunded but remained as an excess credit in the electronic ledger.

Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued on 10.12.2019 under Section 73(1) of the CGST Act, demanding justification for disallowing the transitional credit, and proposing interest and penalties under Sections 50(3) and 122(2)(a) respectively. The petitioner responded on 04.02.2020.

The petitioner contends that despite their efforts to rectify the situation and the technical glitches that prevented the successful filing of the returns, they were forced to reverse the claimed credit. They argue that they should be allowed to carry forward the unutilized credit as per Section 140 of the GST Act.

The prayer in their petition is for the Writ of Certiorari to review and quash the impugned order, seeking relief from the adverse actions taken against them, and requesting the records pertaining to the order for examination.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: