9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 462 - HC - GSTExtension of time for filing of GST TRAN 1 - vires of rule 117 in Central Goods and Service Tax Rules 2017 and rule 117 in West Bengal GST Rules 2017 - transition to GST regime - HELD THAT - Section 140 in CGST Act 2017 requires a condition precedent to be fulfilled for being entitled to take amount of CENVAT credit of eligible duties carried forward as mentioned in the return relating to the period ending with the day immediately preceding the appointed day furnished by him under the existing law in such a manner as may be prescribed. Inserted by notification 3rd proviso in sub-rule (2) of rule 7 Service Tax Rules 1994 required return for the period from 1st April 2017 to 30th June 2017 to be submitted by 15th August 2017. Also inserted by notification rule 7B carries proviso that revised return for period from 1st April 2017 to 30th June 2017 shall be submitted within a period of 45 days from the date of submission of the return under rule 7. Notification dated 9th October 2019 on extension of time to file GST TRAN 1 form till 31st December 2019 vires challenge is not pressed by Mr. Raghavan - the petitioner stands entitled to file revised GST TRAN 1 form up to 31st December 2019. Since Revenue has not acted upon the law whereby CENVAT credit can be denied but is otherwise resisting claim for availing the credit on omission by error on uploaded GST TRAN -1 form the resistance cannot be sustained. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Challenge against the letter dated 26th March, 2019 issued by Additional Commissioner of State Tax. 2. Vires of rule 117 in Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 and rule 117 in West Bengal GST Rules, 2017. Analysis: The petitioner challenged a letter issued by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax and the validity of certain GST rules. The petitioner, represented by Mr. Raghavan, argued that a clerical error led to a claim of short credit during the transition to the GST regime. This error was not due to a technical glitch, and the legality of the credit claimed was not disputed. Mr. Raghavan cited judgments from various High Courts supporting similar situations where errors were rectified. On the other hand, Mr. Kundalia, representing the Union of India, contended that the petitioner did not file the required service tax return (ST-3), thus questioning the petitioner's eligibility for transition benefits. However, Mr. Raghavan clarified that the ST-3 return was filed online but the revised return had to be filed manually due to technical limitations. He highlighted a notification extending the deadline for filing GST TRAN-1 form. The Division Bench referred to previous judgments emphasizing property rights and the appropriation of CENVAT credit under the CGST Act. The court analyzed the requirements under section 140 of the CGST Act and related rules, noting that the petitioner had fulfilled these conditions. Considering the extension of the deadline for filing the GST TRAN-1 form, the vires challenge was withdrawn. The court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to file the revised form by the extended deadline. Since the Revenue had not acted on denying the CENVAT credit based on law but was resisting the claim due to an error in the uploaded GST TRAN-1 form, the resistance was deemed unsustainable. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of based on the above observations.
|
