2019 (10) TMI 664 - HC - GST

Filing of Form GST TRAN1 - transitional input credit - Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.2, submitted that the representation made by the petitioner is still pending consideration before the respondent No.2 - HELD THAT - Issue Rule, returnable on 13.11.2019.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over entitlement to transitional input credit.
2. Interpretation of Notification dated 10.09.2018 by the Government of India.
3. Consideration of errors by IT Grievance Redressal Committee.
4. Application of Supreme Court decisions in tax matters.
5. Justification for denying transitional input credit.
6. Procedure to be followed for resolving the issue.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner's advocate argued that the respondent did not contest the petitioner's entitlement to transitional input credit, as the Form GST TRAN1 was filed on time. The advocate emphasized that tax credit is a vested right, and unless it is proven that the petitioner failed to claim it within the specified period, the denial of the claim is unjustified. The advocate urged a rational decision based on a purposive interpretation of the Notification dated 10.09.2018, highlighting the need for a broader consideration of errors beyond technical glitches.

2. Referring to the IT Grievance Redressal Committee's meeting minutes, it was noted that the Committee categorized errors into technical/system issues and cases lacking evidence of such issues. The Committee allowed filing of Form GST TRAN1 only in cases with technical/system issues, raising concerns about the limited scope of consideration.

3. The advocate cited the Supreme Court's decision in Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Union of India, emphasizing the accrued right of the assessee upon paying taxes on inputs for further product manufacturing. A similar proposition was supported by the Supreme Court's decision in Collector of Central Excise, Pune v. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd., underlining the continuity of the right until its realization.

4. The respondent's counsel clarified that the IT Grievance Redressal Committee did not reject the petitioner's case but suggested following the procedure outlined in the circular dated 03.12.2018 of CBIC. The issue was deemed suitable for resolution by the concerned Nodal Officer as per the prescribed process, rather than the GSTC Secretariat.

5. The Assistant Government Pleader representing the respondent informed the court that the petitioner's representation was pending consideration by the respondent, indicating an ongoing review process.

6. Consequently, the court issued a Rule returnable on 13.11.2019, directing the respondent to provide any decision made on the petitioner's representation by the specified date, if available. The case was scheduled for listing on the admission board pending further developments.