2019 (8) TMI 82 - HC - GST

Right to carrying forward of CENVAT Credit as a transitional credit - Discriminatory action by the respondent no. 3 and 4 in not extending the benefit of Notification No. 31 of 2018 dated 06.08.2018 - benefit of carrying forward of CENVAT Credit as a transitional credit by virtue of enforcement of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - HELD THAT - While a detailed discussion is present in the representation of the petitioner dated 11.07.2018 at Annexure-2 and a copy of which has been received in the Office of Commissioner on 27.08.2018 as manifest from the copy present at running Page-73 of the pleadings but the substance of the grievance we have noted above and since the laches is on the part of the Nodal Officer the respondent no. 5 in not taking necessary steps for disposal of the grievance so raised that the writ petitioner is before this Court when understandably Mr. Pathy learned counsel appearing for the petitioner makes an attempt to address the Court on the inter-party merits but considering that the relief prayed in the writ petition would invite a direction in the nature of mandamus we would allow the concerned respondent authority i.e. respondent no. 5 to address on the issue and take all necessary steps for its disposal in accordance with law with opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his representative within a period of six weeks of the receipt/production of a copy of this order. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner's complaint of discriminatory action in extending benefits of Notification No. 31 of 2018 for carrying forward CENVAT Credit as transitional credit due to enforcement of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition against the respondent authorities alleging discriminatory action for not extending the benefits of Notification No. 31 of 2018. The petitioner claimed that due to missing to include its Service Tax registration in Part B of Form GST REG-26, it was unable to carry forward the closing balance of CENVAT Credit. The petitioner argued that the denial of benefits under the notification was unjust and discriminatory, as they should be entitled to the same benefits as those who did not file Part B of the form. The Court noted the detailed discussion in the petitioner's representation and acknowledged the delay in addressing the grievance by the Nodal Officer, the respondent no. 5. The Court allowed the respondent authority to address the issue and take necessary steps for disposal of the grievance within six weeks, providing an opportunity for the petitioner or their representative to be heard.

This judgment highlights the importance of addressing grievances promptly and ensuring fair treatment in matters of tax benefits and transitional credits under GST regulations. The Court's decision to allow the concerned authority to address the issue and provide a resolution within a specific timeframe emphasizes the need for procedural fairness and adherence to the law in such cases.