relevant Form in TRAN-1
Case Title | Suriya Engineering Works vs The Office of Superintendent of Control GST and Central Exercise. |
Court | Madras High Court |
Honorable Judges | Justice C.Saravanan |
Citation | 2022 (3) GSTPanacea 271 HC Madras W.P(MD) No 7377 of 2020 |
Judgement Date | 04-March-2022 |
Council for Petitioner | R.Baskaran |
Council for Respondent | S.Ragaventhre |
Section | Section 140 of the CGST Act, 2017 |
In Favour of | Favour of Assessee |
The Madras High Court bench of Justice C.Saravanan has held that credit availed under the provisions of Central Excise Act and Central Excise Rules, 1944 are indefeasible and are intended to reduce the cascading effect of the tax to benefit the consumers. There is no lapsing of such untilised credit court inclined to allow this writ petition.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Writ Petition filed praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to permit the petitioner/tax payer to file or revise form Tran-1 already filed either electronically or manually and consequently avail the benefits towards that the petitioner attempted to transition the unutilised input credit under the provisions of GST Act 2017.
The petitioner was unable to uphold the relevant Form in TRAN-1 under Section 140 of the CGST Act, 2017, as a result of which, a sum of Rs.15,75,507/- lying unutilised in the petitioner’s form ER1 (Exercise Returns) for the month of June 2017 could not be utilised by the petitioner for discharging the tax liability under the respective Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
The writ petition is resisted primarily on the ground that there was Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) prescribed to redress the grievance vide IT Grievance Redressal Committee, circular No.39/13/2018, dated 03.04.2018. It is submitted that the petitioner has not submitted any grievance as per the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) in the above circular to substantiate that the petitioner facing any technical problem on account of the IT related issues and therefore the petitioner is not entitled for the relief.
relevant Form in TRAN-1
COURT HELD
Considering the facts as recorded, held that credit availed under the provisions of the erstwhile Central Excise Act and Central Excise Rules, 1944 are indefeasible and are intended to reduce the cascading effect of the tax to benefit the consumers. There is no lapsing of such untilised credit. In the light of the above, court inclined to allow this writ petition and accordingly the writ petition allowed in terms of the order in W.P.(MD).Nos.7093 and 11614 of 2020, and W.P.(MD).No.11614 of 2020.
The respondents are directed to verify the records and returns of the petitioner under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and if the credit had been unutilised on the cut off date (i.e) 30.06.2017, the respondents shall suitably credit into the electronic credit register of the petitioner the amount which had remained unutilized and would not be transitioned under the GST regime This exercise shall be carried by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
relevant Form in TRAN-1
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
As a matter of fact, a detailed order was passed in W.P.(MD).Nos. 7093 and 11614 of 2020, and the same was followed in W.P.(MD).No.11614 of 2020. These decisions are inspired from the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Assistant Commissioner of GST etc Vs Bharat Electronics Limited Vide order dated 18.11.2021 in W.A.No.2203 of 2021 and from the few decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court particularly in Collector of Central Excise, Pune and others V Dai Ichi Karkaria Limited and others (1999) 7 SCC 448.
Wherein, it has held that credit availed under the provisions of the erstwhile Central Excise Act and Central Excise Rules, 1944 are indefeasible and are intended to reduce the cascading effect of the tax to benefit the consumers. There is no lapsing of such untilised credits.
Download PDF:
For Reference Visit: