9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1443X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed proper to entertain this petition and not throw the petition overboard for availing the alternative remedy. Section 140 (1) of the Act envisages that a registered person other than a person opting to pay taxes under Section 10 shall be entitled to take, in his electronic credit ledger, the amount of CENVAT credit. Undisputedly, the registration number/Permanent Account Number of the petitioner is same nationwide. Thus, sub-section (1) of Section 140 does not permit the respondents to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner was obliged to file return electronically only in the GST portal of Maharashtra. Admittedly, the petitioner had registration under the existing law i.e., Service Tax Law and also got himself registered under the Act. The last proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 140 of the Act leaves no room for any doubt that the credit may be transferred to any of the registered person having same Permanent Account Number for which the centralised registration was obtained under the existing law. The filing of return in the GST portal of Telangana and transfer of credit is squarely covered and permissible under the last proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 140. The very ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Annexure-P-17) and made it clear that total transitional credit of Rs.1,41,26,69,646/- was transferred to Maharashtra GST registration on the same day of filing the TRAN-1 and only the differential balance of ITC amounting Rs.2,00,000/- was available in the State of Telangana. To support the aforesaid submission, the Electronic Credit Ledger for the period July, 2017 to March, 2018 was annexed with the reply. 5. The respondents issued a show-cause notice dated 29.12.2021 and in turn the petitioner filed his detailed reply on 27.01.2022 (Annexure P-20). The respondents were not satisfied with the reply to the show-cause notice and passed the impugned Order-in-Original dated 31.10.2023, which is subject matter of challenge in this petition. By this order respondent No. 2 ordered as under: ORDER a) I confirm the demand of Rs.1,41,26,69,646/- (Rupees One hundred and forty one crores twenty six Lakhs sixty nine thousand six hundred and forty six only), being the irregularly availed transitioned credit through TRAN-1 in the State of Telangana under Section 140 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 74 of the CTGST Act, 2017 and Rule 121 at CGST Rules, 2017. (b) I confirm the demand of I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shtra portal, the department has no justifiable reason to deny the same or take action against the petitioner. By no stretch of imagination, the petitioner can be saddled to deposit the same amount with penalty and interest. Stand of Revenue: 9. Sounding a contra note, learned counsel for the Revenue raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this Writ Petition and urged that Section 107 of the Act provides an efficacious statutory alternative remedy. The petitioner should have availed the same. However, during the course of argument, he fairly admitted that the singular question involved in this case is, indeed, a pure question of law. 10. Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that admittedly, the petitioner s centralised registration is in the State of Maharashtra. Thus, the petitioner should have filed the return on the GST portal of Maharashtra and not in Telangana. Even assuming that the portal of Maharashtra had any technical glitch, the petitioner was not remediless and he should have approached the higher authorities of GST Regime of Maharashtra for redressal of his grievance. The petitioner should not have filed the return on the GST portal of Telangana, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the appellant through the mill of statutory appeals in the hierarchy. What follows from the said decisions is that where the controversy is a purely legal one and it does not involve disputed questions of fact but only questions of law, then it should be decided by the high court instead of dismissing the writ petition on the ground of an alternative remedy being available. (Emphasis Supplied) 14. Thus, we deem it proper to entertain this petition and not throw the petition overboard for availing the alternative remedy. Show Cause Notice: 15. The relevant portion of show cause notice dated 29.12.2021 reads as under: 2. M/s. Standard Chartered Bank, Hyderabad availed input tax credit of Rs. 141,26,69,646/- through Table 5 (a) of TRAN-1 return filed by them on 18.10.2017. On being pointed out during the course of preliminary scrutiny of said TRAN-1 return by the officers of Hyderabad Audit-I Commissionerate, the taxpayers vide their letter dated 19.07.2018, have submitted that they were not registered in the State of Telangana under Service tax regime as they have centrally registered in Maharashtra. It was further informed that as they could not file TRAN-1 return in Maharashtra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Section 140 of CGST Act, 2017 on the grounds that they were not registered under service tax law and they did not file any return for the period July 2017 in the State of Telangana. That they held Centralised Service Tax Registration and branches located in Telangana were part of the centralised registration which is appearing as additional places of business. That they have enclosed the Service Tax Registration Certificate in Form ST-2 evidencing that their branches are registered. That they have enclosed PAN India List of GST Registrations. That the GST Registration Certificate of Maharashtra and Telangana PAN number is same and covered under the Centralized Registration. That they have not contravened the provisions of Section 140 (8) of the CGST Act, 2017. That they have availed the transitional credit in the State of Telangana due to technical glitches faced by them while filing Tran-1 in Maharashtra. That they had no option in circumstances of technical glitches faced by them at Maharashtra but to avail the credit in another state and then transfer the same to Maharashtra again. That it is evident from the Electronic Credit Ledger that M/s SCB India has not utilized the cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) or provision of taxable as well as exempted services under Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994), but which are liable to tax under this Act, shall be entitled to take, in his electronic credit ledger,-- (a) the amount of CENVAT credit carried forward in a return furnished under the existing law by him in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1); and (b) the amount of CENVAT credit of eligible duties in respect of inputs held in stock and inputs contained in semi-finished or finished goods held in stock on the appointed day, relating to such exempted goods or services, in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3). (5) to (7) (8) Where a registered person having centralised registration under the existing law has obtained a registration under this Act, such person shall be allowed to take, in his electronic credit ledger, credit of the amount of CENVAT credit carried forward in a return, furnished under the existing law by him, in respect of the period ending with the day immediately preceding the appointed day in such manner as may be prescribed: Provided that if the registered person furnishes his return for the period endin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... last proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 140. 25. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the Revenue could not establish that there exists any prohibition/bar in filing the return through electronic mode in GST portal of Telangana where petitioner s branch admittedly exists. The petitioner derived any undue benefit by filing return in the GST portal of Telangana and transferring the credit on the same day and the Revenue suffered any loss because of aforesaid action of the petitioner. 26. Pertinently, the respondents did not dispute the stand of the petitioner that because of technical glitch in the GST portal of Maharashtra, the petitioner was constrained to file return in the GST portal of Telangana. This is also not the stand of the Revenue that during the relevant time, GST portal of Maharashtra was functional and yet, the petitioner had chosen to file return in the GST portal of Telangana. 27. Needless to emphasise that it was the duty of the Department to keep their portal functional. If the portal was not functional or having technical glitch and because of that the petitioner was compelled to file return in the portal of Telangana, the petitioner cannot be sad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
