Indusind Media Communications Ltd VS Union Of India

On August 10, 2017, an important business transaction took place involving two parties, referred to as Petitioner No. 2 and Petitioner. Petitioner No. 2 transferred a segment of its business known as Headend In The Sky (HITS) to Petitioner. HITS is a technology used in the distribution of television signals via satellite.

This transfer likely entailed a significant amount of negotiation, documentation, and legal processes to ensure the smooth transition of assets and responsibilities from Petitioner No. 2 to Petitioner. It would have involved considerations such as intellectual property rights, contractual agreements, financial arrangements, and regulatory compliance.

The reasons behind this transfer could vary. It might have been part of a strategic decision by Petitioner No. 2 to streamline its operations, divest non-core assets, or focus on other areas of its business. On the other hand, for Petitioner, acquiring the HITS business could have been a strategic move to expand its market presence, acquire new technology, or enhance its service offerings.

The date of August 10, 2017, marks a significant milestone in the corporate history of both Petitioner No. 2 and Petitioner. It signifies a moment of transition and transformation for both parties, with potential implications for their future growth and success in the industry.

On August 10th, 2017, a significant business transfer occurred between two parties, referred to as Petitioner No. 2 and Petitioner No. 1. Specifically, Petitioner No. 2 transferred a segment of its operations known as Headend In The Sky (HITS) to Petitioner No. 1. However, prior to this transfer, as of July 1st, 2017, Petitioner No. 2 possessed Input Credit from the preceding Central Value Added Tax (CENVAT) regime. Consequently, Petitioner No. 2 aimed to transition this existing Input Credit into the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime by filing TRANS­1.

In its revised TRANS­1 filing, Petitioner No. 2, under the provisions outlined in Section 140(8) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, sought to allocate the available Input Credit among its various branch offices and locations, all of which held separate registrations under the Act. However, despite the submission and acceptance of the revised TRANS­1, technical complications arose. These complications prevented the proper reflection of the credit distribution among the branches and locations on the designated website.

Consequently, the GST credit ledgers at the respective branches and locations failed to accurately display the credited amounts stemming from the distribution carried out by Petitioner No. 2’s Mumbai location. This discrepancy in the ledger data led to an inability for the branches and locations to access the credit rightfully allocated to them.

In instances of business transfers such as this, governed by Section 18(3) of the relevant legislation, the complexities of credit distribution and allocation become pivotal. The failure to effectively distribute the available Input Credit among the branches and locations impairs the operational efficiency and financial management of the entities involved, particularly affecting Petitioner No. 2’s ability to utilize its entitled credit resources post-business transfer.

On August 10, 2017, Petitioner No. 2 initiated the transfer of a portion of its business, specifically the Headend In The Sky (HITS) service, to Petitioner No. 1. However, as of July 1, 2017, Petitioner No. 2 had accrued Input Credit under the previous CENVAT regime. With the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, Petitioner No. 2 sought to carry forward this available Input Credit by filing TRANS-1.

In the revised TRANS-1, Petitioner No. 2, under Section 140(8) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, attempted to distribute the available Input Credit among its various branch offices or locations, each of which had separate registrations under the GST Act. Despite the submission of the revised TRANS-1 and its acceptance, technical issues prevented the proper distribution of the credit among the branches or locations. Consequently, the GST credit ledgers at these branches or locations did not reflect the credit that should have been available due to the distribution made by Petitioner No. 2’s Mumbai location.

In cases of business transfer, as per Section 18(3) of the GST Act, the transferee (Petitioner No. 1) is entitled to claim any unutilized input tax credit remaining in the transferor’s (Petitioner No. 2) books. This unutilized credit should be reflected in Form ITC-02 filed by Petitioner No. 2. However, due to the technical issues hindering the proper reflection of the revised TRANS-1 distribution, this flow of Input Credit to Petitioner No. 1 is not occurring. This technical problem was acknowledged during the Grievance Redressal Committee’s second meeting on August 21, 2018, where it was noted that the system was not accepting downward revisions of Input Credit availability.

As a consequence of the distribution outlined in Petitioner No. 2’s revised TRANS-1 not being accurately reflected on the GSTN website, the Input Credit cannot be utilized by the branches or locations for filing the GSTR-3B returns. Additionally, it’s highlighted that according to Section 16(4) of the GST Act, the last date for claiming input tax credit for the financial year ending March 2018 was October 20, 2018. Failure to rectify this issue could lead to the lapse of the Input Credit, causing financial implications for both Petitioner No. 2 and Petitioner No. 1.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: