Kumaran Filaments Pvt Ltd VS Commissioner of Central GST And Central Excise

The petitioner is requesting a Writ of Certiorari from the court. This legal writ would require the court to review and potentially nullify a specific order that has been issued. The order in question is identified as “order in original No.GST/01/2020,” which was passed by the third respondent. The details associated with this order are recorded under the case number “C.No: V/GST/15/31/2019-Adjn” and the order was issued on May 4, 2020. The petitioner believes that this order is erroneous or unjust, and therefore seeks the court’s intervention to call for the records related to this order and to annul it.

The petitioner’s concern, which is registered under GST No. 33AADCK6351N1ZB, involves the regular filing of monthly GST returns. The petitioner asserts that despite fulfilling their compliance obligations by consistently submitting these returns, they have encountered issues that necessitated raising their concern with the authorities.

The petitioner is bringing this issue before the third respondent, who is presumably the relevant GST authority responsible for overseeing the GST filings and compliance of entities within the jurisdiction. The primary grievance appears to be related to the processing, acknowledgment, or potential discrepancies in the records maintained by the GST authority concerning the petitioner’s submissions.

The petitioner might be seeking clarification, rectification of records, or some form of redress for problems faced due to these discrepancies or procedural lapses. The specific nature of the issue, whether it is a technical glitch, a misunderstanding in the compliance requirements, or an administrative oversight, is not detailed but is significant enough for the petitioner to bring it to formal attention.

This action likely aims to ensure that the petitioner’s compliance history is accurately reflected in the GST records, thereby avoiding any undue penalties, interest, or legal complications that might arise from perceived non-compliance. The resolution of this matter would involve the third respondent verifying the petitioner’s claims, cross-checking the records, and making necessary corrections to align the official records with the petitioner’s filings.

In summary, the petitioner is requesting that the third respondent address and resolve the discrepancies or issues in the GST records related to their consistent monthly filings under the specified GST number, thereby ensuring accurate and fair treatment under the GST regulations.

The petitioner, registered under GST No. 33AADCK6351N1ZB, had been consistently filing monthly returns under the Goods and Services Tax Act (GST Act). Following the implementation of the GST regime from July 1, 2017, the petitioner found themselves in possession of unutilized CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 50,21080/-, which had been accrued during the previous tax regime and reported through returns in ER-1 for the initial quarter of 2017 (April to June). Upon the transition to the GST system, the petitioner sought to claim this unutilized CENVAT credit through TRAN-1, consequently carrying it forward into the new regime as Input Tax Credit.

The petitioner, registered under GST with GST No. 33AADCK6351N1ZB, asserts that it consistently filed monthly returns as required by the Goods and Services Tax Act. With the implementation of the GST regime from July 1, 2017, the petitioner had unutilized CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 50,21080/- from the previous regime. This credit had been reported in ER-1 returns for the first quarter of 2017, covering April, May, and June. Following the GST implementation, the petitioner attempted to claim this unutilized credit through the TRAN-1 form and successfully carried it forward as Input Tax Credit into the new regime.

However, in May 2019, the second respondent notified the petitioner that the ER-1 return for the mentioned period in 2017 had not been filed. This discrepancy raised concerns regarding the petitioner’s compliance with filing requirements, despite their claim of regular filing.

The petitioner, registered under the GST Act with GST No. 33AADCK6351N1ZB, claimed to have consistently filed monthly returns as required by the law. However, they discovered unutilized CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 50,21080/- from the pre-GST regime, specifically from the first quarter of 2017 (April to June), which they sought to transition into the GST regime through the TRAN-1 form. This credit was intended to be carried forward as Input Tax Credit under the new system.

In May 2019, the petitioner was notified by the second respondent that they had not filed returns for the mentioned quarter of 2017, and thus, were requested to reverse the claimed CENVAT credit. The petitioner promptly responded by submitting the ER-1 returns for April, May, and June 2017, via online upload on the ACES portal. They received acknowledgment of successful upload for these returns.

monthly returns under the Goods and Services Tax Act (GST Act). Transitioning from the pre-GST regime to GST, the petitioner had unutilized CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 50,21080/- from the first quarter of 2017, which it sought to claim via TRAN-1 under the new GST regime.

However, in May 2019, the second respondent notified the petitioner that its ER-1 return for the first quarter of 2017 had not been filed. Consequently, they demanded the reversal of the aforementioned CENVAT credit. The petitioner promptly submitted the ER-1 for April, May, and June 2017, through the ACES portal, receiving a “successful upload” acknowledgment.

Despite this, the uploaded returns were rejected due to technical issues. Despite repeated attempts with the helpdesk, the returns remained unfiled. The petitioner contends that, under Section 140 of the GST Act, it is entitled to carry forward the unutilized CENVAT credit.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: