2021 (7) TMI 421 - HC - GST

Transitional credit - denial on the ground that the credit taken input service invoices beyond the period of 30 days of the appointed date - HELD THAT - Learned counsel for the respondent CGST prays for and is allowed 4 weeks time to file counter affidavit. Matter be listed after 5 weeks so that petitioner, if so advised, may file reply thereto.

Summary

Issues: Denial of transitional credit, rejection of part of the claim, lack of appeal remedy

Denial of Transitional Credit:
The petitioner's transitional credit of &8377; 3,72,688/- was initially denied due to alleged booking of input service invoices beyond the 30-day period from the appointed date. However, on rectification application, the respondents accepted that TRAN-1 could be filed on 31.07.2017 based on legal provisions. Part of the claim was allowed, but &8377; 1,74,469 paid on 12.08.2017 and claimed as transitional credit was rejected without initiation of proceedings under Sections 73/74 of the Act of 2017. The petitioner argues the lack of appeal remedy, necessitating court intervention.

Rejection of Part of the Claim:
While a portion of the transitional credit claim was accepted, the rejection of &8377; 1,74,469 paid on 12.08.2017 raises concerns. The denial occurred without commencing any proceedings under relevant sections of the Act, indicating a potential oversight or misinterpretation of legal provisions. The petitioner's contention of being deprived of a remedy of appeal highlights the significance of judicial review in such cases to ensure fairness and adherence to statutory requirements.

Lack of Appeal Remedy:
The petitioner's assertion of lacking an appeal remedy underscores the importance of judicial oversight in tax matters. The inability to appeal decisions affecting transitional credit claims can lead to potential injustice or arbitrary outcomes. By approaching the Court, the petitioner seeks redressal for the rejected transitional credit amount, emphasizing the need for legal clarity and procedural fairness in tax-related disputes.

Conclusion:
The judgment addresses the denial of transitional credit, the rejection of part of the claim, and the petitioner's lack of appeal remedy. It highlights the significance of legal provisions, procedural adherence, and the role of judicial review in ensuring fair outcomes in tax disputes. The Court's intervention is sought to rectify the rejected transitional credit amount and uphold the principles of justice and statutory compliance in taxation matters.