9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 902 - HC - GSTSeeking to re-open the GSTN portal to enable the petitioner to file revised Form GST TRAN-1 - transitional credit - HELD THAT - The petitioner cannot be permitted to forgo a sum of Rs.39,13,025/- which according to petitioner is entitled to deemed excised credit particularly when under sub-section 3 of Section 29 his liability will continue even after cancellation of registration. It will be wholly unfair if petitioner ends up having to forgo the deemed excise credit of a substantial amount of Rs.39,13,025/- - it is directed that the petitioner shall, by 4.30 p.m. on 18th November 2022, submit the physical application for restoration of the registration - petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Petitioner's request for re-opening the GSTN portal to rectify errors in Form GST TRAN-1 and file Form TRAN-2. 2. Entitlement of the petitioner to claim transition credit under Section 140(3) of the CGST Act. 3. Legal provisions regarding cancellation of GST registration and transition of credit. 4. Lack of provision for revocation of cancellation in cases where a registered person applies for cancellation. 5. Ensuring fairness in allowing the petitioner to claim deemed excise credit of Rs.39,13,025. Analysis: 1. The petitioner sought a writ to re-open the GSTN portal to rectify errors in Form GST TRAN-1 and file Form TRAN-2 to claim a credit of Rs.39,13,025. The court, by consent, decided to dispose of the petition at the current stage. 2. The petitioner's GST registration was canceled after closing the business, leading to the inability to transition the credit. The petitioner claimed entitlement to transition credit under Section 140(3) of the CGST Act, which was crucial for rectifying errors in the transition process. 3. The court examined the legal provisions related to cancellation of GST registration under Section 29 of the CGST Act. It noted that cancellation of registration does not absolve the person's liability to pay taxes or discharge obligations for the period before cancellation. Therefore, allowing the petitioner to transition the credit was deemed necessary. 4. Section 30 of the CGST Act provides for the revocation of registration cancellation, but it primarily addresses situations where the registration is canceled by the proper officer. In this case, where the petitioner applied for cancellation, there was a gap in the legal framework for revocation or restoration of registration. 5. Emphasizing the importance of fairness, the court acknowledged the petitioner's right to the deemed excise credit and ordered the restoration of registration. The court directed the petitioner to submit a physical application for restoration, ensuring the process is completed before the deadline for migration under TRAN-1 and TRAN-2. 6. The court's order mandated the restoration of registration, submission of necessary documents, and consideration by the Nodal Officer. The court ensured that the GSTN portal would be accessible for the petitioner to apply for migration under TRAN-1 and TRAN-2, thereby safeguarding the petitioner's entitlement to the claimed credit. 7. In conclusion, the court disposed of the petition by granting relief to the petitioner, allowing for the restoration of registration and facilitating the process of claiming the transition credit within the specified timeline to ensure fairness and compliance with legal provisions.
|
