2022 (5) TMI 844 - HC - GST

Permission for re-opening the common portal so as to enable the petitioner to submit the Form GST TRAN-1 electronically or to permit the petitioner to manually submit Form GST-TRAN-1 - section 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Section 140 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 read with rule 117 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules 2017/Rule 117 of the TamilNadu Goods and Services Tax Rules 2017 - HELD THAT - The fact that whether the petitioner was having unutilised credit as on 30.01.2017 would have been available with the officers from the Service Tax Department drawn from the Central Excise Department. The fact that the petitioner has uploaded the relevant Form in Form TRAN-1 is not in dispute as it has been acknowledged by the Commercial Tax Department Tamil Nadu on 04.10.2017. It cannot be said that the petitioner has not uploaded the TRAN-1 as it has been acknowledged by the Commercial Tax Department Tamil Nadu. In the initial months of implementation of GST enactment, there was confusion as to which of the assessees would be assessed by the Commercial Tax Department and which of the assessee would be assessed by the officers under the Central Government from the Central Excise Department - there are no justification in the stand of the respondent in not allowing the credit to be utilised. If such credit existed as on 30.06.2017, being the last date after which the Goods and Services Tax regime was in place, credit should be allowed. This writ petition by directing the respondents 1 and 2 to ascertain from the Service Tax Returns filed by the petitioner whether prior to the implementation of the Goods and Service Act, input tax credit was validly availed but had not been utilised by the petitioner. If such credit remained unutilised, which according to the petitioner amounts to Rs.37,83,380/-, the same shall be allowed either by way of corresponding credit entry in the electronic cash register of the petitioner or by way of cash refund.

Summary

Issues:
1. Writ of Mandamus to direct respondents to enable submission of Form GST TRAN-1.
2. Transition of unutilized input tax credit under new regime.
3. Discrepancies in credit amount and communication with tax authorities.
4. Interpretation of Goods and Service Tax Rule 117 regarding filing deadlines.
5. Dispute over unutilized credit amount and eligibility for transition.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus to compel the respondents to allow submission of Form GST TRAN-1 electronically or manually. The petitioner, engaged in operating three Satellite Channels, claimed substantial unutilized input tax credit as of the cut-off date. The attempt to transition this credit under new provisions faced challenges, leading to the petition.

2. The petitioner detailed efforts to upload the TRAN-1 Form, subsequent communications with tax authorities, and discrepancies in credit amounts mentioned. The petitioner's case highlighted the untransferred credit from Service Tax Returns to the new regime, emphasizing the need for resolution regarding the unutilized credit amount.

3. The respondents' communication cited Goods and Service Tax Rule 117 (1A) regarding filing deadlines, indicating limitations for submissions post the specified due date. The petitioner's representations, email exchanges, and the subsequent responses from the tax help desk were scrutinized for clarity and consistency in the credit amount claims.

4. The legal counsel for respondents argued against the petitioner's claims, emphasizing the need for clear disclosure of unutilized credit amounts and adherence to procedural requirements. The Goods and Service Tax council's stance on non-filing of returns before the cut-off date was highlighted to counter the petitioner's assertions.

5. The judgment analyzed the petitioner's history as a Service Tax assessee, acknowledging the confusion during the initial GST implementation phase. The court emphasized the importance of validating unutilized credit claims from pre-GST period and directed the respondents to verify the petitioner's input tax credit status. The order mandated a review within 45 days to allow the unutilized credit or provide cash refund, ensuring the petitioner's right to be heard and present additional evidence.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment showcases the court's meticulous review of the issues raised, the arguments presented by both parties, and the ultimate directive issued to resolve the dispute over unutilized input tax credit transition under the new Goods and Service Tax regime.