2022 (8) TMI 278 - HC - GST

Refund of the unutilized CENVAT Credit - Revision of ER-1 returns for their factory unit, in order to avail the CENVAT Credit - permission to petitioner to file their revised GST TRAN-1, based on their revised ER-1 returns - time limit prescribed under Rule 117 of CGST Rules is ultra vires the provision of Section 140 and Section 174 of the CGST Act or not - HELD THAT - If the petitioner avails the facility of filing the concerned forms through the common portal within the stipulated period in terms of the aforesaid order of the Supreme Court, appropriate action in accordance with law will be taken. The statement is accepted. The writ petition stands disposed of without examining the rival claims on merits.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Relief sought by the petitioner challenging an Order-in-Appeal.
2. Refund of unutilized CENVAT Credit.
3. Revision of ER-1 returns for availing CENVAT Credit.
4. Filing revised GST TRAN-1 based on revised ER-1 returns.
5. Challenge to the time limit under Rule 117 of CGST Rules.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought various reliefs through the writ petition, challenging an Order-in-Appeal. The relief included setting aside the said order and allowing the refund of unutilized CENVAT Credit. Additionally, the petitioner requested permission to revise their ER-1 returns for the factory unit to avail the CENVAT Credit. The petitioner also sought direction to file revised GST TRAN-1 based on the revised ER-1 returns. Moreover, a challenge was made to the time limit prescribed under Rule 117 of CGST Rules as ultra vires the provisions of the CGST Act.

2. The attention of the court was drawn to an order passed by the Supreme Court of India in a batch of Special Leave Petitions. The Supreme Court directed the Goods and Service Tax Network (GSTN) to open a common portal for filing forms for availing Transitional Credit through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 for a specified period. The order allowed aggrieved registered assesses to file or revise relevant forms, irrespective of their petition status before the High Court or the decision by the Information Technology Grievance Redressal Committee (ITGRC).

3. The learned advocates for the parties agreed that the Supreme Court's order addressed the immediate grievance of the petitioner. It was noted that the petitioner could avail the facility of filing the required forms during the specified period when the portal was accessible. The court recorded the statement of the senior Central Government counsel that appropriate action would be taken if the petitioner complied with the Supreme Court's order within the stipulated period.

4. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without delving into the merits of the rival claims. The court did not award any costs in this matter. The disposal was based on the acceptance of the statement made by the Central Government counsel regarding the petitioner's compliance with the Supreme Court's order within the specified timeline.

This detailed analysis outlines the issues raised in the judgment, the reliefs sought by the petitioner, the directives from the Supreme Court, and the eventual disposal of the writ petition based on compliance with the higher court's order.