9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Systems & Data Management, 4th & 5th Floor, Hotel Samrat, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi - 10021. Sir, Sub: Forwarding of request of M/s. Field Motor Private Limited, Cuttack, for approval of TRAN-I Credit entry- reg. Please find enclosed a copy of letter dated 09.05.2018 (along with enclosures) of M/s. field Motor Private Limited, Cuttack, an assessee under Bhubaneswar GST & Central Excise Commissionerate, regarding approval of their TRAN- 1 Credit entry. Contents of their letter are self-explanatory. From the assessee's letter, it appears that they had erroneously filed TRAN-1 Credit entry against "7d-Stock of goods" instead of "7a-Duties and Taxes on inputs". The assessee claims to be in possession of all duty paying documents. The assessee also communicated with GST Help-Desk and they were advised to furnish screenshots of the Electronic Cash Ledger and the tab, where ITC details are shown as pending. The assessee complied with this on 27.04.2018 (copy of E-mail communication is enclosed). However, their problem is yet to be resolved. In light of the above, the request of the party may be decided for revision (or otherwise) of their form TRAN-1 at an early date as th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IL-480-GUJ, observed as under :- "3. The main grievance of the petitioners, however, need further examination. Counsel for the petitioners pointed out that Form TRAN-1 was filed by the petitioners on 08.07.2017 showing balance CENVAT Credit of Rs. 1,06,08,998/-. However, due to pure over-sight and typographical error, the CENVAT Credit admissible in ITC was shown as "Nil". On account of this wrong declaration, the petitioners would not be able go migrate the left over CENVAT Credit as on 30.06.2018 to the GST regime. Counsel pointed out that the last date by extension for fling Form TRAN -1 was 27.12.2017, before which date, the petitioners had attempted to make correction in the said Form. 4. A letter was written to the authorities on 25.11.2017 stating as under; "Referring to out telecommunication on help desk at the time of filing TRANS 1 in the head of Amount of Tax Credit Carried Forward, We missed to enter the amount in Column Cenvat Credit admissible as ITC and as a result Cenvat Credit is not carried over. Moreover we do not have option of re-open TRANS 1..." 5. In response to such letter, the petitioners received following response from the authorities; "Resoluti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er 27, 2017. The onus to provide evidences, for non-fling before the due date because of technical glitches, was left with the tax payers, vide the above circular. Hence, the petitioner has made attempts even to file their return by manual mode, before the Assistant Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise. Tirunelveli, on January 31, 2018, which, in the option of this court, is a genuine attempt made by the petitioner. 8. GST is a new progressive levy. One of the progressive ideal of GST is to avoid cascading taxes. GST Laws contemplate seamless flow of tax credits mately accrued in the GST transition. The due date contemplated under the laws to claim the transitional credit is procedural in nature. In view of the GST regime and the IT platform being new, it may not be justifiable to expect the users to back up digital evidences. Even under the old taxation laws, it is a settled legal position that substantive input credits cannot be denied or altered on account of procedural grounds. 9. In view of the foregoing discussions and also considering the special circumstances of the case that the petitioner has made genuine efforts for filing returns not only through online but also ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a copy of this order to the respective assessing officer/jurisdictional officer/GST officer. (b) On receipt of such application, the assessing officer/jurisdictional officer/GST officer is directed to forward the application to the respective nodal officer within a period of one week. (c) The nodal officer in consultation with the GSTN shall take note of the grievances expressed by the petitioners/assesses and forward the same to the grievance committee, which is turn would take an appropriate decision in the matter as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within a period of six weeks thereafter." 2.8 High Court of Kerala, in the case of Leena P. Nair v. GST Council, New Delhi, reported in 2018 (16) GSTL 434 (Ker.) observed as under:- "In terms of the provisions contained in the Goods and Services Tax Statutes brought into force with effect from 01.07.2017, the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions, who have migrated to the GST regime, should have uploaded FORM GST TRAN-1 within the time stipulated to avail input tax credit in respect of their old stock. It is stated by the petitioners that all of them have though attempted to upload FORM GST TRAN-1 within the time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll make an application to the field officers of the nodal officers where there was a demonstrable glitch on the Common Portal in relation to an identified issue due to which the due process as envisaged in law could not be completed on the Common Portal. 5.3. Such an application shall enclose evidences as may be needed for an identified issue to establish bona fide attempt on the part of the taxpayer to comply with the due process law. 5.4. These application shall be collated by the nodal officer and forwarded to GSTN who would on receipt of application examine the same GSTN shall after verifying its electronic records and the applications received, identify the issue involved where a large section of tax payers are affected GSTN shall forward the same to the IT grievance Redressal Committee with suggested solutions for resolution of the problem. (Italics supplied) 4. Not only the petitioner but also may other people faced this technical glitch and approached this Court Both the learned counsel submits that this Court on earlier occasions permitted the petitioner to apply to the Nodal Officer concerned to have the issue resolved. 5. So, here the petitioner may apply to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Deputy Commissioner, the order was confirmed on 29th January, 1963, The petitioner subsequently paid all the taxes and then wrote a letter dated 17- 12-1963 to the assessing officer informing him that he has paid all the taxes and praying for a refund already asked for. But this letter was summarily disposed of by the Commercial Tax Officer informing the petitioner that the matter had already been settled and the revision petition filed by him had also been dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner and that the petitioner might, if so advised, seek remedy from higher authorities. This order was passed on 22-12-1963, but it was actually received by the petitioner on 28-12-1963. Under Section 35 (1) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, he filed a revision to the Board of Revenue but it was only on 7-3-1964. When that came up before the Board of Revenue, it was rejected mainly on the ground that it was barred by limitation, and it was not disposed of on merits. Now it is to quash this series of orders that the present writ petition has been filed. 4. The learned Counsel contended before me that under the proviso to Section 4 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, the words used are "the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dment by Act 6 of 1963 and Section 4-Awas introduced to this effect: "Tax BO levied and collected under Section 4 shall be refunded", and the rules were suitably amended. The importance of collection came into prominence only when the new provision came into force on 1-4-1963. At the time of the application for refund by the petitioner, it was not necessary for him to have paid the tax and then claimed the refund. In the instant case, on the dates when the petitioner filed his applications for refund, this amended Section 4-A was not in force and therefore the petitioner was entitled to claim refund without having paid the tax. 7. When once I come to the conclusion that the rule-making authority has no jurisdiction to prescribe a period of limitation for obtaining a refund as provided in Section 4, then the petitioner can file an application for refund without any period of limitation. In the instant case, all the authorities have found hat the petitioner had paid the taxes and was entitled to claim the refund but rejected that claim on the ground that such a claim was barred by limitation under Section 35 (1) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. Of course, there was a delay of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod of twelve weeks from the date the representation, is received by the CBIC. 6. Petition disposed of in the above terms." 2.12 High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, in the case of M/s. Pragati Automotion Pvt. Ltd. v. The Union of India and others, vide its order dated 31st January, 2019 in Writ Petition No.3159/2019 (T-RES.) observed as under:- "The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioners to correct the bonafide error which has crept in while filing the GST Tran-1 form because of which the petitioner is deprived of the transitional credit of an amount of Rs. 9,74,57,802/- in their electronic credit ledge. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that after the GST regime has been implemented in India, the petitioner filed GST TRAN-1 claiming credit of Rs. 9,74,57,802/- in Column -5 of Table 5(a) of Form GST TRAN -1 well within the time prescribed by the statute. Revised Form GST TRAN -1 was filed by the petitioner on 27.12.2017 after including the details of goods sent to job worker and held in his stock on behalf of the principal manufacturer in terms of Section 141 of CGST Act credit pertaining to job work. Howe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
