Ms Electrosteel Steels Limited Through Its Authorized Signatory Bibhas Sah vs. The Union Of INDIA Through The Pr Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax And Central Excise
Held
The Court directed the petitioner to submit a representation to the Nodal Officer of the Commissionerate (G.S.T.), Ranchi. The respondents were consequently directed to decide this representation for the petitioner to claim CENVAT credit by filing FORM GST TRAN-1. The decision was to be made in accordance with the prevailing law and any relevant circulars issued by the respondents. This decision was to be rendered within a period of four weeks from the date the respondents received a copy of the petitioner's representation. The Court did not delve into the merits of the CENVAT credit claim itself but focused on the procedural aspect of enabling the petitioner to file the necessary form.
Facts
M/s Electrosteel Steels Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court seeking directions to the respondents, the Union of India through the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Ranchi, and the Superintendent of CGST, Chas Range-I, Bokaro, to provide them with the facility to file FORM GST TRAN-1. The petitioner intended to claim CENVAT credit under Rule 117 of the Central Goods & Service Tax Rules, 2017. The petitioner stated that they encountered difficulties in filing the form online, which was not available. The petition was filed to enable the respondents to decide on the petitioner's representation.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim CENVAT credit under Rule 117 of the Central Goods & Service Tax Rules, 2017, by filing FORM GST TRAN-1, given the alleged unavailability of the online facility? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that they are entitled to claim CENVAT credit and that their inability to file the necessary form online necessitates intervention. They sought a direction for the respondents to provide them with the means to file FORM GST TRAN-1. Respondents' Contention: The respondents did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's claim or the procedural issue raised. The judgment indicates that the court heard counsels for both sides, implying the respondents were present and heard.
Sections Cited
Rule 117
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(T) No. 1255 of 2019
-----
M/s Electrosteel Steels Limited, a company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at 801, Uma Shanti Apartments, Kanke Road, Ranchi-834008, Jharkhand, India through its Authorized Signatory Bibhas Saha, Aged about 57 years, Son of Late Ganesh Chandra Saha, Resident of 7, Sevagram Nilgunge Road, P.O. & P.S. Belgaria, District-Kolkata.700056. …. Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India, through the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) and Central Excise, Ranchi, having its Office at Central Revenue Building, 5-A, Main Road, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Chutia, District Ranchi-834 001, Jharkhand.
The Superintendent, Central Excise and Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST), Chas Range-I, Bokaro Division-I, Stadium Road, Sector-IV, Bokaro, P.O. Bokaro, P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro, Jharkhand.
…. Respondents
----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. PATEL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.B. MANGALMURTI
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Jharkhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.