9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 27 - HC - GSTCarry forward of transitional credit - permission to petitioner to file declaration in form GST TRAN 1, either electronically or manually or be permitted to take the credit through monthly return GSTR-3B - HELD THAT - If it is possible or feasible to open the portal so that the assessee may be able to file its TRAN 1 return or revised return or re-revised return in Maharashtra, an attempt should be made for that. If it is not possible or feasible, the concerned Assistant Commissioner shall communicate the same to petitioner within two weeks of uploading of this order. In such a case, petitioner should be permitted to make unutilized credit in its GST 3B Forms to be filed on the monthly basis. Similar approach has been taken by the Hon ble High Court at Calcutta in NODAL OFFICER, JT. COMMISSIONER, IT GRIEVANCE, GST BHAWAN VERSUS M/S. DAS AUTO CENTRE AND OTHERS 2021 (12) TMI 835 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT where it was held that It is clearly clearly brought out the difficulties faced by the assesses and also as to how the assesses having substantially complied with the requirement under law and having been entitled to credit on account of transition to the GST regime which is beyond the purview of the assessee and the assessee cannot be put to prejudice on account of technicalities. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
Petitioner seeking direction for transitional credit of CENVAT, filing of declaration in form GST TRAN 1, and credit transfer issue. Analysis: The Petitioner approached the Bombay High Court seeking direction for the transfer of transitional credit of Rs. 84,53,085 of CENVAT by filing a declaration in form GST TRAN 1. It was revealed that the Petitioner mistakenly filed TRAN 1 through the Andhra Pradesh branch login instead of the Maharashtra branch GST login, where they held centralized service tax registration. Consequently, the CENVAT credit balance of eligible duties as of June 2017 was not transferred to the electronic credit ledger of either branch. The Assistant Commissioner forwarded the representation to the Deputy Commissioner (GST) for necessary action, confirming that the Petitioner had indeed filed TRAN 1. The main issue was determining how to give credit to the Petitioner for the CENVAT credit. The Court directed that if feasible, the portal should be opened to enable the Petitioner to file its TRAN 1 return or revised return in Maharashtra. If this was not possible, the Assistant Commissioner was instructed to communicate this within two weeks. In such a scenario, the Petitioner should be allowed to utilize the credit in its monthly GST 3B Forms. The Court cited judgments from the Calcutta High Court and the Panjab & Haryana High Court, supporting a similar approach in related cases. The Petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, clarifying that no observations were made on the credit's merits. Additionally, the Court accepted the statement that the Petitioner had not availed of any other credit. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issue of transferring transitional credit of CENVAT to the Petitioner and provided a practical solution by allowing credit utilization in monthly returns if accessing the portal for filing TRAN 1 in Maharashtra was not feasible. The Court's decision was based on precedents from other High Courts, emphasizing the need for fair treatment in such cases without commenting on the credit's validity.
|
