2024 (12) TMI 570 - HC - GST

Refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Section 54 of the CGST Act - refund sanctioning Orders challenged on the ground that the petitioner did not have any unutilised ITC ignoring the transitional credit in the Electronic Credit Ledger of the petitioner and therefore it was contended that the sanction of the refund was required to be withdrawn in absence of any unutilised ITC under the IGST, CGST and SGST Head in the Electronic Credit Ledger - HELD THAT - Considering the facts of the case, the issue in this petitions pertaining to un-utilised ITC after considering the CENVAT credit as per the Form GST TRAN-1 is no more res-integra in view of the decision in case of M/s. Torrent Pharmaceuticals 2024 (7) TMI 408 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT wherein the refund was allowed. In the facts of the case, the provisions of Section 54 of the CGST Act would be applicable as the respondent-Authorities could not have adopted an hyper-technical approach by depriving the petitioner of the CENVAT credit which was available as on 01.07.2017 on the ground that such credit was reflected in the Electronic Credit Ledger only in the month of August, 2017 on processing of the Form GST TRAN-1. The impugned Orders dated 19th February, 2019 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Order-in-Original dated 29th April, 2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner as well as the show-cause notice dated 15.10.2021 are accordingly quashed and set aside. Petition allowed.

Issues Involved:

1. Eligibility of the petitioner to claim refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Section 54 of the CGST Act.
2. Validity of the transitional CENVAT Credit carried forward under the GST regime.
3. Legality of the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Additional Commissioner regarding refund recovery.
4. Appropriateness of the respondent authorities' actions in initiating recovery proceedings based on the transitional credit issue.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility of the petitioner to claim refund of unutilized ITC:

The petitioner, engaged in the manufacture and export of goods under a Letter of Undertaking without payment of IGST, claimed refunds for accumulated ITC under Section 54 of the CGST Act. The petitioner argued that they were entitled to utilize the transitional CENVAT Credit available in the Electronic Credit Ledger as of July 1, 2017, for the payment of GST for the months of July, August, and September 2017. The court noted that the transitional credit should relate back to July 1, 2017, allowing the petitioner to claim the refund of unutilized ITC for zero-rated supplies, as per Section 54(3) of the CGST Act.

2. Validity of the transitional CENVAT Credit carried forward:

The petitioner contended that the transitional CENVAT Credit, as per Form GST TRAN-1, was processed on August 28, 2017, and should be considered as an opening balance in the Electronic Credit Ledger from July 1, 2017. The court agreed, emphasizing that the transitional credit should be treated as available from the onset of the GST regime, thereby justifying the refund claims for the relevant period.

3. Legality of the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Additional Commissioner:

The Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the refund orders, arguing that the petitioner had no unutilized ITC at the time of filing the refund claims, as the transitional credit was not reflected in the Electronic Credit Ledger until later. The court found this approach to be hyper-technical and contrary to the intent of the GST transition provisions. It held that the adjudicating authority had correctly sanctioned the refunds by considering the transitional credit as part of the opening balance, thereby quashing the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Additional Commissioner.

4. Appropriateness of the respondent authorities' actions in initiating recovery proceedings:

The respondent authorities initiated recovery proceedings based on the argument that the petitioner was not entitled to the refund due to the transitional credit issue. The court found that the authorities had erred in their interpretation and application of the law, as the transitional credit should have been considered available from July 1, 2017. Consequently, the court quashed the recovery orders and show-cause notices, emphasizing that the petitioner was entitled to the refunds initially sanctioned.

Conclusion:

The court allowed the petitions, quashing the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Additional Commissioner, as well as the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner. It reiterated that the transitional CENVAT Credit should be treated as available from the start of the GST regime, thereby validating the petitioner's refund claims under Section 54 of the CGST Act. The decision underscores the principle that transitional credits should be seamlessly integrated into the new tax regime to avoid undue hardship to taxpayers.

← Previous Next →