2018 (10) TMI 996 - HC - GST

Transitional credit/input tax credit - filing of TRAN-1/TRAN-2 - technical/system errors - Held that - The present petitioner is one of the 213 entities which were allowed the facility and benefit of transitional credit - It is urged that the petitioner should first ensure that the credits which it otherwise is entitled to both transitional and input credit as on 01.07.2017, are duly claimed and reflected in the place of its registration i.e. Mumbai in order to ensure that thereafter, the other centres where it is registered, can claim it. List on 16.10.2018.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petitioner's transitional credit not reflected in Electronic Credit Ledger Account.
2. Meeting of IT Grievance Redressal Committee (ITGRC) to address the issue.
3. Decision of IT-GRC regarding filing of TRAN-1 in specific cases.
4. Petitioner's entitlement to transitional and input credit.
5. Petitioner approaching Bombay High Court for relief.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner raised a grievance that its transitional credit, based on an approved Scheme of Arrangement from August 2017, was not reflected in its Electronic Credit Ledger Account. This omission jeopardized the petitioner's ability to claim the credit against its output tax liability, leading to potential loss of the credit set to lapse in September 2018.

2. The counsel for the GST Commissioner informed the court about the IT Grievance Redressal Committee (ITGRC) meeting held on 21.08.2018 to address such issues. The meeting minutes highlighted cases where technical issues were identified, including instances where the system did not allow downward revision of distributed credit in Table 8 of TRAN-1. The ITGRC decided to allow filing of TRAN-1 in 213 cases due to technical/system issues, while denying it in 127 cases lacking evidence of errors.

3. The decision of the IT-GRC was based on detailed discussions and considerations of technical/system issues. The committee allowed filing of TRAN-1 in specific cases, subject to Law Committee recommendations on consequential benefits related to filing of TRAN-1/TRAN-2. The IT-GRC emphasized handling such situations in a time-bound manner and made decisions on a case-by-case basis.

4. The petitioner was identified as one of the entities allowed transitional credit benefits by the IT-GRC. The counsel highlighted the petitioner's claim in the meeting minutes and stressed the importance of claiming entitled credits, both transitional and input, to ensure proper reflection in the registration location and subsequent centers for credit claims.

5. Additionally, it was mentioned that the petitioner had also approached the Bombay High Court seeking similar relief. The court listed the matter for further proceedings on 16.10.2018, indicating ongoing legal actions to address the petitioner's concerns regarding transitional credit issues.