2023 (9) TMI 1052 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - no clear discussion as to which provision has been referred to - Excess Tax carried forward to electronic credit ledger as state tax in Tran-1 - HELD THAT - A reading of the impugned order indicates that there is no clear discussion as to which provision has been referred to in the paragraph immediately following the table in the impugned order. There is also no discussion in the impugned order while denying the amount of Input Tax Credit that was allegedly wrongly transmitted by the petitioner in Trans-1. The impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in this case are related to the eligibility of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (TNGST Act) u/s 140, and the failure to provide clear reasoning in the impugned order regarding the denial of ITC claimed in TRAN 1 return.

Eligibility of Input Tax Credit (ITC) u/s 140:
The petitioner, a taxable person under the TNGST Act, had filed a TRAN 1 return claiming excess tax carried forward to the electronic credit ledger. The impugned order referred to the second proviso of the TNGST Act 2017, which states that certain credits may not be eligible if not substantiated within the prescribed period. The petitioner was found to have not mentioned details of certain forms in the TRAN 1 return, leading to the denial of ITC. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment regarding the carrying forward of credit under the existing law, which supported the inclusion of amounts captured in returns filed under the erstwhile TNVAT regime for transition under Section 140.

Lack of Reasoning in Impugned Order:
The impugned order lacked clear discussion on the specific provision referred to after the table in the order. Additionally, there was no reasoning provided for the denial of the amount of ITC claimed in the TRAN 1 return. Due to these deficiencies, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the case back to the respondent for a fresh order to be passed on merits and in accordance with the law within four weeks. The petitioner is to be heard before the new order is passed, and the writ petition was disposed of with no costs incurred.

This judgment highlights the importance of providing clear reasoning and adherence to legal provisions when determining the eligibility of Input Tax Credit under the GST laws, ensuring fair treatment for taxable persons and upholding the principles of natural justice in legal proceedings.