9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der the said registration. Correlation of the claim of the petitioner with the invoices produced by the petitioner - HELD THAT:- The said issue can only be resolved by the respondent authorities by looking at the documents produced by the petitioner. It appears that at the original stage, documents were rejected on the ground that they have not emanated from the registered entity or branch. At the appellate stage, the appellate authority while affirming this finding of the original authority had taken an additional ground that there was no correlation. The Order-in-original dated 02.07.2021 passed by the 2nd respondent and the Appellate order dated 31.03.2022 passed by the 1st respondent are set aside - The present dispute is remanded back to the 2nd respondent-Original Authority for determining whether the credit claimed by the petitioner is in accordance with the Rules and Law after verifying whether the registration certificate of the petitioner covered the branches at Mumbai, Tamil Naidu and Telangana etc. The writ petiiton is disposed off by way of remand. - THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO And THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N FOR THE PETITIONER: APARNA NAND ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... balances of the dealers under the earlier Acts to the GST Act is under Section 140(1) (3) of the GST Act, 2017 which reads as follows, is the relevant part of Section 140(1) (3) for the purposes of this Writ Petition: Section-140: Transitional arrangements for input tax credit. (1) A registered person, other than a person opting to pay tax under section 10, shall be entitled to take, in his electronic credit ledger, the amount of CENVAT credit 1[of eligible duties] carried forward in the return relating to the period ending with the day immediately preceding the appointed day, furnished by him under the existing law 2[within such time and] in such manner as may be prescribed: Provided that the registered person shall not be allowed to take credit in the following circumstances, namely:-- (i) where the said amount of credit is not admissible as input tax credit under this Act; or (ii) where he has not furnished all the returns required under the existing law for the period of six months immediately preceding the appointed date; or (iii) where the said amount of credit relates to goods manufactured and cleared under such exemption notifications as are notified by the Government. (2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The 2nd respondent, by his Order-In-Original DIN.20210755YK000000BC77, dated 02.07.2021, after considering the objections filed by the petitioner, had rejected the claim of the petitioner and raised a demand of Rs.71,29,299/- as recovery of wrongly availed credit, Rs.71,29,299/- as penalty for wrongful availed of credit, under Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 122 of the Central Goods Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short the CGST Act, 2017 ] read with Section 74(9) of the CGST Act, 2017. Aggrieved by the said Order-In-Original, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent which came to be dismissed by an order dated 31.03.2022 bearing DIN.No.20220355AS000000B3AC 10. To cut short the details of these orders, a concise record of the issues that had been raised and answered can be put forward in the following manner : - I. It is the case of the petitioner, that transitional credit was claimed on the goods which had moved to its branch in Andhra Pradesh from Mumbai, Hyderabad, New Delhi under 287 certified copies of invoices, being 270 invoices from its branch in Mumbai, 13 invoices from its branch in New Delhi, 2 invoices each from the branches situated at Chennai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pose of these rules. The Board may by notification and subject to such (2) conditions or limitations as may be specified in such notification, specify person or class of persons who may not require such registration. The registration under sub-rule (1) shall be subject to (3) such conditions, safeguards and procedure as may be specified by notification by the Board. 13. She contends that Rules-9(2) provides for an exemption to be granted from the requirement of registration, by way of a notification and such a notification was issued, on 01.03.2016, bearing No.5/2016. 14. The said notification reads as follows:- [TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA, EXTRAORDINARY, PART II, SECTION 3, SUB-SECTION (1)] GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE) Notification No. 5/2016-Central Excise (N.T.) New Delhi, the 1st of March, 2016 G.S.R. (E)- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (2) of rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, the Central Board of Excise and Customs hereby exempts from the operation of said rule, every manufacturing factory or premises engaged in the manufacture or production of articles of jewellery other than articles of silver jewellery ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kananda, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue, would contend that the finding of the respondent authorities that the petitioner does not have an appropriate registration is correct. He would submit that the petitioner has not produced the centralized registration certificate and the annexure to the said certificate before the authorities and as such, the finding of the authorities cannot be disturbed. 20. Sri Y.N. Vivekananda, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would also contend that the finding of the 1st respondent-appellate authority that the invoices produced by the petitioner cannot be correlated to the claims of the petitioner is correct. He would also submit that there is no proof of payment of duty which was placed before the authorities. He draws the attention of this Court to the said finding of the 1st respondent that no documents demonstrating proof of payment of duty has been placed before the authorities. 21. As can be seen from the rival submissions, the claim of the petitioner for grant of transition of the CENVAT credit available to the petitioner is being disputed on two grounds. Firstly, that, the stock transfer voucher has been issued by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
