Vision Distribution Pvt Ltd VS Commissioner, State Goods And Services Tax

s engaged in the business of selling and buying mobile phones and that its sales include exports outside India. The Petitioner seeks a directive for the Respondents to refund Rs. 3,05,09,355/-, claiming it is owed to them.

of the Respondents, the Petitioner could not upload Form GST TRAN-1 within the stipulated time. Subsequently, the Respondents issued Notification No. 48/2018-Central Tax dated 10.09.2018, thereby permitting the Petitioner to submit Form GST TRAN-1 by 31.10.2018. Relying upon the said Notification, the Petitioner submitted Form GST TRAN-1 on 29.10.2018. The Respondents, however, did not process the Form GST TRAN-1 on the ground that there was no jurisdictional authority to entertain the same. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred the present petition.

We have listened to learned counsels and proceed to address the present petition. The Petitioner seeks a directive for the Respondents to refund Rs. 3,05,09,355/-. The Petitioner operates in the mobile phone sales and purchase business, with its output supplies including exports from India. Registered under Delhi Value Added Tax, 2014, the Petitioner transitioned to the Goods and Services Tax Act starting from 01.07.2017. Under Section 140 of the CGST Act, 2017, the Petitioner claims entitlement to carry forward Rs. 3,13,06,050/- in unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) as of 01.07.2017. Despite the availability of Form GST TRAN-1 by 25.08.2017, the portal did not facilitate submission until 28.09.2017. Consequently, the Petitioner could not upload its Form GST TRAN-1 in July or most of August 2017. However, the Petitioner continued its export activities, paying Rs. 1,37,37,029/- in cash for taxes in July 2017, despite being eligible for CGST credit of Rs. 3,13,06,050/- from 01.07.2017.

The petitioner’s grievance centers around the respondents’ inaction and failure to facilitate the seamless transfer of unutilized input tax credit to the petitioner’s account. This situation prevented the petitioner from utilizing the input tax credit effectively during export transactions in July and August of 2017. As a result, the petitioner incurred additional financial burden, having to pay out of pocket instead of using available credit.

The petitioner in this case alleges that the respondents’ inaction and failure to facilitate the smooth migration of their unutilized input tax credit caused significant financial losses. Specifically, the petitioner claims that due to the inability to utilize accumulated input tax credits during exports in July and August 2017, they were compelled to incur costs amounting to Rs. 1,37,37,029. These losses, according to the petitioner, could have been avoided if they had been able to utilize their input tax credits accumulated even before the GST regime came into effect.

The petitioner has sought refunds totaling Rs. 1,37,37,029, alongside input tax credits earned on zero-rated supplies amounting to Rs. 50,42,831 for July 2017 and Rs. 1,17,29,495 for August 2017, aggregating to Rs. 3,05,09,355.

In response, Mr. Harpreet Singh, representing the respondents, argues that the petitioner only submitted Form GST TRAN-1 in December 2017, despite the opportunity to do so earlier.

The petitioner claims that due to the respondents’ inaction and failure to facilitate the smooth migration of unutilized input tax credit into their account, they were unable to utilize this credit during exports in July and August 2017. Consequently, the petitioner had to pay Rs. 1,37,37,029/- out of pocket, which they assert could have been avoided if they had been able to use their accumulated input tax credit, even from before the GST regime came into force.

The petitioner seeks a refund totaling Rs. 3,05,09,355/-, which includes the aforementioned amount as well as input tax credit earned on zero-rated supplies during July and August 2017. The respondents, represented by Mr. Harpreet Singh, acknowledge that the petitioner uploaded Form GST TRAN-1 only in December 2017, despite the option being available from August 28, 2017 onwards. They do not dispute that the petitioner could not utilize their accumulated transitional credit during the specified months. Mr. Singh argues that those who filed Form GST TRAN-1 from August 25, 2017 onwards received credit in their input tax credit ledger for immediate utilization.

The petitioner’s grievance stems from the respondents’ failure to facilitate the smooth migration of unutilized input tax credit into the petitioner’s account, thereby preventing them from utilizing this credit for exports in July and August 2017. As a result, the petitioner was compelled to pay Rs. 1,37,37,029/- in cash, which could have been offset using accumulated income tax credit predating the GST regime. The petitioner seeks a refund of this amount, along with input tax credits totaling Rs. 3,05,09,355/- from zero-rated supplies made during those months.

In response, Mr. Harpreet Singh, representing the respondents, acknowledges that the petitioner only submitted Form GST TRAN-1 in December 2017, despite the option being available since August 28, 2017. He concedes that the petitioner couldn’t utilize transitional credit accumulated before GST during July and August 2017. However, he argues that those who submitted Form GST TRAN-1 from August 25, 2017, onwards received credit in their accounts for immediate use. Mr. Singh contends that under the GST regime, there’s no provision for refunding accumulated input tax credit. He notes that while the petitioner paid Rs. 1,37,37,029/- in cash, an equivalent amount of input tax credit has been available in their ledger since November 2017, which can be used in the future.

The case revolves around the interpretation and application of GST regulations concerning the utilization and refund of input tax credits, highlighting discrepancies in credit facilitation timelines and their implications for taxpayers under the new tax regime.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: