9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (8) TMI 1197 - HC - GSTRefund of certain unutilized CENVAT credit - HELD THAT - The petitioner, opted to try his luck by filing a fresh TRAN-1 form seeking transition of CENVAT credit which had not been refunded on account of the above orders. This application of the petitioner was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner on 27.02.2023. The application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the said application is covered by instruction No.4.7 of the aforesaid circular and as such the request of the petitioner for transitioning further credit is not permissible - A reading of this provision would make it clear that this provision stipulates that if a request made, under TRAN-I/TRAN-2, in the earlier period had been rejected, the same cannot be reiterated under the second chance given by the Hon ble Supreme Court. In such circumstances the only option available to the person making such an application is to file an appeal against the earlier order of rejection of transition. In the present case, the rejection order was passed under the CENVAT regime itself and it is not an order of rejection of TRAN-1/TRAN-2. In the event, the impugned order dated 27.02.2023 in DIN3718012392140 and DIN3718012314992 is set aside, remanding the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner to consider the matter afresh. Needless to say, the Deputy Commissioner shall give adequate opportunity to the petitioner to set out its case and also to reply to any issues raised by the Deputy Commissioner - Petition allowed.
Issues:
1. Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit applications rejected by Assistant Commissioner. 2. Appeals rejected by Commissioner on grounds of delay. 3. Rejection of fresh TRAN-1 form by Deputy Commissioner for transitioning CENVAT credit. 4. Interpretation of circular instruction No. 4.7 regarding reiteration of rejected transition requests. 5. Government Pleader's contention on rejection of credit usage and transition. 6. Consideration of impugned order and remand back to Deputy Commissioner. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a manufacturer of medicinal soaps, applied for refund of unutilized CENVAT credit amounts, which were rejected by the Assistant Commissioner in separate orders. The first order rejected Rs. 60,53,365/- refund claim and allowed Rs. 4,35,438/- as credit, while the second order rejected Rs. 35,57,702/- refund claim and allowed Rs. 12,86,422/- as credit. 2. The petitioner's appeals against the rejection were dismissed by the Commissioner due to filing delays. The rejection of appeals was based on the grounds of delay in filing the appeals. 3. The petitioner attempted to transition the unrefunded CENVAT credit to the GST regime by filing a fresh TRAN-1 form, which was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner citing circular instruction No. 4.7. The rejection was based on the interpretation that reiterating rejected transition requests was not permissible. 4. The circular instruction No. 4.7 clarified that if a transition request under TRAN-I/TRAN-2 had been rejected earlier, it cannot be reiterated during the specified period. The provision implied that filing a fresh declaration for transition was not the appropriate course of action if the credit had been rejected earlier. 5. The Government Pleader argued that the rejection of refund effectively barred the usage of credit, thus preventing its transition from CENVAT to GST regime. However, this contention was not considered as it was not part of the impugned order and was not permissible to be looked into based on legal precedent. 6. The court set aside the rejection order of the fresh TRAN-1 form, remanding the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner for reconsideration. The Deputy Commissioner was directed to provide adequate opportunity to the petitioner for presenting their case and responding to any raised issues, with a mandate to complete the consideration and orders on the transition forms within four months from the date of the order. In conclusion, the Writ Petition was allowed with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous petitions were closed as a sequel to the judgment.
|
