2023 (11) TMI 1013 - HC - GST

Entitlement to CENVAT Credit - case of petitioner is that he made a claim under column 7(d) inadvertently, instead of making a TRAN-1 claim under column 7(b) - HELD THAT - The petitioner makes claim that he ought to have filed returns under by making a claim under Column 7(b) and erroneously he made a claim under Column 7(d). Since the petitioner has claimed that he has necessary invoices and documents to support his claim under column 7(b) , this Court is of the view that the impugned order is to be set aside and matter is remitted to respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 shall consider the claim of the petitioner under Column 7(b) of CGST Rules, 2017, if there are supporting documents to make claim under Column 7(b). If the claim is established then the consequential relief should follow - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to order of Superintendent of Central Excise regarding GST credit claim under incorrect column.

Summary:
The petitioner, a partnership firm registered under the Goods and Services Tax Act, challenged the order of the Superintendent of Central Excise regarding a show cause notice issued for scrutiny of GST returns. The petitioner claimed CENVAT credit of Central Excise duty on stock of goods held on a specific date. The respondent issued a notice based on the petitioner's claim under an incorrect column of the form. The petitioner contended that the claim was made inadvertently and provided additional documents to support the correct claim. The respondent relied on Section 107 of the CGST Act, while the petitioner cited a similar case from the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court where relief was granted upon verification of the claim. The Court observed that the petitioner's claim should have been filed under a different column and set aside the impugned order, remitting the matter back to the respondent for consideration. The Court directed the respondent to verify the claim under the correct column and grant relief if supported by documents. The Court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the merits of the claim and instructed the respondent to process the petitioner's claim within three months from the date of the order.

In conclusion, the petition challenging the order of the Superintendent of Central Excise was disposed of with directions for reconsideration of the petitioner's claim under the appropriate column of the CGST Rules, emphasizing the need for supporting documents for the claim to be established and consequential relief to be granted.