Case tittle | Rungta Mines Limited VS Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax And Central Excise |
court | Jharkhand high court |
Honourable judge | Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary |
Citation | 2020 (02) GSTPanacea 77 HC Jharkhand W.P.(T) No. 2245 Of 2020 |
Judgment date | 15-February-2022 |
In a legal proceeding, Mr. K. Kurmi, a learned Advocate representing the petitioner, supported by Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari and Ms. Sidhi Jalan, Advocates, presented their case. They were countered by Mr. Amit Kumar, legal counsel for the respondents. The essence of the writ petition revolved around seeking the annulment of two orders: one from the appellate authority (Respondent No. 2) dated 03.2.2020, and the other from the adjudicating authority (Respondent No. 3) dated 25.1.2019. The relief sought was twofold: firstly, to overturn the aforementioned order in appeal, and secondly, to nullify the original order passed by the adjudicating authority.
The court proceedings began with Mr. K. Kurmi, an advocate representing the petitioner, accompanied by Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari and Ms. Sidhi Jalan. On the other side, Mr. Amit Kumar presented the respondents’ case. The petitioner sought several reliefs through the writ petition:
1. To overturn the appellate authority’s order dated February 3, 2020 (Annexure-1).
2. To annul the adjudicating authority’s order dated January 25, 2019 (Annexure-2).
3. To nullify the show-cause notice dated July 24, 2018, issued by the adjudicating authority, which proposed rejecting the petitioner’s refund application for CENVAT Credit of Rs. 10,88,328/-.
4. To obtain a refund of the aforementioned CENVAT Credit amount under Section 142(3) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, along with Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Rule 2(l) and Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
The petitioner essentially contested against adverse decisions and sought remedy and relief through the legal process.
The hearing commenced with Mr. K. Kurmi, the petitioner’s counsel, accompanied by Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari and Ms. Sidhi Jalan, presenting the petitioner’s case, followed by Mr. Amit Kumar, representing the respondents, presenting their side. The petitioner seeks several reliefs through the writ petition, including the annulment of the orders passed by the appellate and adjudicating authorities, as well as the rejection of a show-cause notice proposing to reject the petitioner’s refund application for CENVAT Credit of Rs. 10,88,328/-. Additionally, the petitioner seeks the refund of this credit under Section 142(3) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, read with relevant provisions.
The petitioner’s counsel argues that Section 140 of the CGST Act, along with Rule 117 of CGST Rules, outlines a mechanism for carrying forward the closing balance of CENVAT Credit from the previous regime to the GST regime via declaration in Form GST TRAN-1. They assert that Section 140(5) of the CGST Act does not necessitate claiming credit in the ER-1 returns for June 2017, as the time for filing these returns would have lapsed by the time invoices are received, hence, disclosing the receipt of services in the books of accounts should suffice. They differentiate between Section 141, which pertains to job work, and Section 142, which encompasses miscellaneous transitional provisions not covered in the former sections. The petitioner contends that their case falls under Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, which allows for the refund of CENVAT Credit in certain circumstances as part of transitional measures.
Section 142(3) of the CGST Act allows for the refund of CENVAT Credit in cash under specific circumstances, according to the petitioner’s argument. They contend that the limitation for claiming such credit in ER-1 returns for June 2017 is not applicable due to practical constraints, and therefore, mere disclosure in books of accounts should suffice. Additionally, they emphasize that the petitioner’s case falls within the ambit of Section 142(3), which provides substantive provisions for refunding CENVAT Credit in transitional scenarios.
On the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar, representing the respondents, likely presented counter-arguments against the petitioner’s claims, which could include challenging the interpretation of relevant provisions of the CGST Act and CGST Rules, as well as disputing the applicability of Section 142(3) to the petitioner’s case. He might have emphasized the need for strict adherence to procedural requirements and the validity of the orders passed by the appellate and adjudicating authorities.
Overall, the hearing revolves around the interpretation and application of provisions concerning the transition of CENVAT Credit to the GST regime and the eligibility of the petitioner for a refund under Section 142(3) of the CGST Act. Both parties present their arguments, highlighting legal interpretations, procedural aspects, and the specific circumstances of the petitioner’s case.
Download PDF:
For Reference Visit:
Read Another Case Law:
GST Case law: