Banerji Memorial Club VS Deputy Commissioner (Tech)

pre-GST period liabilities could not be granted, as the provisional GSTIN had been cancelled. Consequently, the petitioner was unable to avail the transitional credit under the GST regime. The petitioner contends that this denial is unjust since it had made diligent efforts to migrate to GST, albeit facing administrative hurdles. The petitioner argues that its inadvertent error in the migration application should not preclude it from claiming transitional credit for taxes paid during the pre-GST period. The respondents, however, maintain that the petitioner’s failure to correctly apply for migration within the stipulated period under the law bars them from transitional credit.

In response, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking relief, arguing that the denial of transitional credit on procedural grounds overlooks the substantive right to carry forward credits accumulated prior to GST implementation. The petitioner asserts that it fulfilled the conditions for migration and should not be penalized for the administrative challenges it faced during the transition. The High Court, upon hearing the arguments, observed that while procedural lapses occurred, denying transitional credit would result in undue hardship to the petitioner, especially considering its compliance efforts and the eventual regularization of its GST registration.

Ultimately, the High Court directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner’s claim for transitional credit in accordance with principles of natural justice and the substantive provisions of GST law. The court emphasized that the objective of GST is to ensure seamless credit transfer and minimize hardships for taxpayers transitioning from the old tax regime. Therefore, the case underscores the balance between procedural adherence and substantive justice within the GST framework, seeking equitable resolution for taxpayers navigating the complexities of tax regime transitions.

The petitioner, a club previously registered under the service tax regime before the introduction of GST, sought to migrate to the GST regime as per Section 25 of the CGST Act. Following the implementation of GST from July 1, 2017, the petitioner initially received a provisional GST identification number (GSTIN). However, due to an inability to complete the registration process within the stipulated timeframe, this provisional GSTIN was subsequently cancelled by the authorities. As a result, the petitioner faced challenges in filing GST returns from July 2017 onwards.

Despite these setbacks, the petitioner later obtained a regular GSTIN in July 2018. Subsequently, a notification dated August 6, 2018, provided an opportunity for entities like the petitioner to migrate to GST by submitting applications before August 31, 2018. In compliance with this notification, the petitioner submitted an application for migration on August 9, 2018. However, inadvertently, instead of indicating the earlier provisional GSTIN, the petitioner referenced the new GSTIN issued in July 2018.

This mistake led the respondents to reject the migration application, citing it as belated and non-compliant with the requirements. The petitioner contested this decision, arguing that the application was submitted well within the deadline specified in the August 6, 2018 notification. The confusion arose primarily from the incorrect GSTIN provided in the application, which caused a delay in processing and eventual rejection by the authorities.

In response, the respondents (represented by statements filed on behalf of respondents 1, 2, and 4) defended their decision to reject the application (reflected in Ext.P7 communication), attributing it to the petitioner’s error in providing the wrong GSTIN. They argued that this mistake prevented the timely completion of the migration process under the stipulated guidelines, thus justifying their decision.

In light of these circumstances, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash the Ext.P7 communication issued by the respondents and requesting the court to direct the authorities to grant registration under the relevant notification (Ext.P1). This registration would enable the petitioner to claim transitional credit for the period from July 2017 onwards, which had been affected due to the initial cancellation of the provisional GSTIN and subsequent administrative challenges.

Therefore, the dispute centers on the procedural misstep of providing an incorrect GSTIN in the migration application, leading to its rejection, and the petitioner’s plea for relief based on compliance with statutory notifications and the need for transitional credit under GST regulations.

identity of the petitioner and the continuity of their registration under GST, the denial of transitional credit due to a procedural error appears unjustified. The petitioner, a club previously registered under the service tax regime, sought migration to GST but faced challenges due to an inadvertent error in providing their GST identification number (GSTIN). Despite applying within the extended deadline provided by a notification, their application was rejected by tax authorities citing the incorrect GSTIN.

The petitioner initially received a provisional GSTIN which was subsequently canceled due to failure to complete registration formalities in time. They later obtained a regular GSTIN in July 2018 and applied for migration to GST in August 2018, believing they met the migration deadline. However, they inadvertently used their new GSTIN instead of the earlier provisional one in their application.

The court proceedings highlight that while the authorities acknowledged the timely submission of the application, they rejected it on grounds of the incorrect GSTIN, which they deemed crucial for migration eligibility. The petitioner, through a writ petition, challenged this decision, seeking to quash the rejection and obtain approval for migrating their accumulated credit from July 2017 onward to the GST regime.

In response, the court examined the facts, noting that the petitioner’s mistake did not compromise their identity or the continuity of their registration under GST. Therefore, the court opined that denying transitional credit solely based on a procedural error, where no substantive prejudice to tax administration was evident, would be unjust. It emphasized that procedural requirements should yield when substantial rights, such as accrued credits, are at stake for taxpayers.

Ultimately, the court was inclined to rule in favor of the petitioner, suggesting that the rejection of their application be reconsidered, and the petitioner be allowed to migrate their credits from the initial period of GST implementation, ensuring fairness and adherence to the spirit of the GST transition provisions.

In conclusion, the case underscores the importance of balancing procedural adherence with substantive rights in tax matters, ensuring that administrative rigidity does not overshadow the fundamental principles of fairness and equity in tax administration.

In this case, the petitioner, a club, held a service tax registration prior to the introduction of GST on July 1, 2017. Post-GST implementation, the petitioner sought to migrate to the new GST regime under Section 25 of the CGST Act. Initially allotted a provisional GSTIN, the petitioner failed to complete the registration process within the stipulated time, resulting in the cancellation of the provisional GSTIN. Consequently, the petitioner faced difficulties in filing GST returns from July 2017 onward.

Later, in July 2018, the petitioner obtained a regular GSTIN. Subsequently, a notification dated August 6, 2018, allowed assessees to apply for migration to GST by August 31, 2018. Responding to this, the petitioner applied on August 9, 2018, but inadvertently provided the new GSTIN issued in July 2018 instead of the earlier provisional GSTIN.

The respondents, citing this error, rejected the migration application, arguing it was belated due to incorrect information provided. The petitioner contested this rejection in a writ petition, seeking to quash the communication from the respondents (Ext.P7) and requesting direction to grant GST registration under the August 2018 notification. The petitioner aimed to claim transitional credits from July 2017 onwards.

During the hearing, it was acknowledged that the petitioner had indeed applied within the extended deadline of August 31, 2018, despite the clerical error in the GSTIN provided. The court noted that the petitioner’s identity was clear and that both the provisional GSTIN and the subsequently issued regular GSTIN pertained to the same entity, under the supervision of the GST department throughout.

Considering the substantive rights accrued to the petitioner and the lack of prejudice to revenue, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner. It quashed the rejection communication (Ext.P7) and directed the respondents to treat the GSTIN issued in July 2018 as valid from July 2017 onwards. The court instructed the respondents to adjust the system accordingly within one month of receiving the judgment, with notification to the petitioner.

In conclusion, the judgment emphasized the importance of ensuring substantive benefits to taxpayers, even amidst procedural lapses, provided no prejudice to revenue occurs, thereby securing the petitioner’s rights to transitional credits under GST.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: