Malayalam Motors PVT LTD. vs. GST Council - Kerala High Court, 10 September 2018

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU MONDAY ,THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 19TH BHADRA, 1940 WP(C).No. 28824 of 2018 PETITIONER/S: MALAYALAM MOTORS PVT LTD. 9-7-539,NH-47KOONAMTHAI, OPP. MILMA EDAPPALLY, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI.RAJWANTH BEN. BY ADV. ANIL D. NAIR RESPONDENT/S: 1 GST COUNCIL REP. BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY AND EX-OFFICIO SECRETARY TO THE GST COUNCIL SECRETARIATE, 5TH FLOOR, TOWER II, JEEVAN BHARTI BUILDING, JANPATH ROAD, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI-100001. 2 COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE GST COUNCIL SECRETARIAT, 5TH FLOOR, TOWER II, JEEVAN BUILDING, JANPATH ROAD, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI-100001. 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX TAX TOWER, KILLIPALAM, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NODAL OFFICER, CGST DEPARTMENT, KAKKANAD DIVISION, CENTRAL EXCISE BHAVAN, KATHRIKADAVU, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 WP(C) No.28824/2018

JUDGMENT The petitioner claimed the credit transfer through Trans- III, but did not get the central excise credit. When it approached the assessing authority, it was informed that the claim should have been made in Tran-I. In that context, the petitioner submitted the Ext.P7 representation before the 4th respondent. Now seeking its consideration, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

In response to the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1, 2 and 4 has submitted that the petitioner in the first place submitted a wrong form; that is Trans-III, instead of Trans- I. Therefore, it cannot blame the respondents for its not getting the central excise credit.

At any rate, the petitioner's counsel in reply submits that because of the uncertainty in the new tax regime, the petitioner was given to believe that it was Trans-III. He has also maintained that the then the draft rules also indicates the same effect. In the end he has submitted that the 4th respondent may consider the Ext.P7 and take an appropriate decision.

I, therefore, without adverting to the merits of the 3 WP(C) No.28824/2018 matter, dispose of the writ petition, holding that the 4th respondent will consider the Ext.P7 and pass appropriate orders, at the earliest. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE das APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE. EXHIBIT P2OF CREDIT TRANSFER DOCUMENT. EXHIBIT P3OF CREDIT TRANSFER DOCUMENT. EXHIBIT P4OF SCREENSHOT OF TRAN-I. EXHIBIT P5OF SCREENSHOT OF TRAN-3. EXHIBIT P6OF THE ELECTRONIC CREDIT LEDGER SHOWING THE OPENING BALANCE. EXHIBIT P7OF THE CORRESPONDENCE EXCHANGED BETWEEN THE RESPONDENTS AND THE PETITIONER DATED 26/02/2018. EXHIBIT P8OF THE CORRESPONDENCE EXCHANGED BETWEEN THE RESPONDENTS AND THE PETITIONER DATED 01/08/2018.