Polycab Wires PVT. LTD. vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court acknowledged that the petitioner had filed a representation detailing their grievance regarding the denial of transitional credit under Notification No. 31 of 2018. The Court observed that this representation had been received by the Commissioner, who is the appointed Nodal Officer for such matters. The Court noted that the grievance raised in the representation had remained pending and had not been adjudicated upon. Considering that the laches were on the part of the Nodal Officer (Respondent No. 5) in not taking necessary steps for the disposal of the grievance, the Court decided to direct the concerned respondent authority, i.e., Respondent No. 5, to address the issue and take all necessary steps for its disposal in accordance with law. This direction was to be provided with an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or their representative within a period of six weeks from the receipt of the order. The Court did not delve into the inter-party merits of the claim.

Facts

Polycab Wires Pvt. Ltd. (now Polycab India Ltd.) filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging the denial of transitional credit of CENVAT Credit. The petitioner had inadvertently missed migrating its Service Tax registration to the GST regime by not including it in Part B of Form GST REG-26. Consequently, they could not file Form GST TRAN-1 to carry forward the closing balance of CENVAT Credit. The petitioner argued that Notification No. 31 of 2018 dated 06.08.2018, which allowed migration for certain classes of persons who had filed Part A of Form GST REG-26 but not Part B, should have been extended to them. They had filed a representation raising this grievance, which remained unaddressed by the respondent authorities, specifically the Nodal Officer.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of carrying forward CENVAT Credit as transitional credit under Notification No. 31 of 2018, despite failing to include its Service Tax registration in Part B of Form GST REG-26, thereby missing the migration window for filing Form GST TRAN-1? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that they are on the same footing as other persons covered under Notification 31/2018 who had not filed Part B of Form GST REG-26. They argued that the denial of the benefit under Notification 31/2018 is discriminatory and lacks intelligible differentia. They relied on the principle that such denial amounts to a perverse and discriminatory classification. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue or State authorities regarding the merits of the petitioner's claim. However, it notes that the Commissioner is the appointed Nodal Officer for examining such grievances and that the petitioner's representation had been received in his office.