Suriya Engineering Works vs. The Office Of Superintendent Of Control GST
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to permit the petitioner/tax payer to file or revise form Tran-1 already filed either electronically or manually and consequently avail the benefits towards that.
The facts of the case are that the petitioner attempted to transition the unutilised input credit under the provisions of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was unable to uphold the relevant Form in TRAN-1 under Section 140 of the Cental Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, as a result of which, a sum of Rs.15,75,507/- lying unutilised in the petitioner’s form ER1 (Exercise Returns) for the month of June 2017 could not be utilised by the petitioner for discharging the tax liability under the respective Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The writ petition is resisted primarily on the ground that there was Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) prescribed to redress the grievance vide IT Grievance Redressal Committee, circular No.39/13/2018, dated 03.04.2018. It is submitted that the petitioner 1/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has not submitted any grievance as per the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) in the above circular to substantiate that the petitioner facing any technical problem on account of the IT related issues and therefore the petitioner is not entitled for the relief. It is further submitted that the decision of the Delhi Court in W.P. (C) 11040/2018, W.P (C) 196/2019, W.P (C) 8496/2019 and W.P (C) 13203/2013, dated 05.05.2020, is of no relevance, as the issue has as under:
“29. A perusal of the above communication dated 12.12.2019 reveals that the GST Council referred to the ITGRC meeting, wherein, cases of the petitioners were considered and indicated that their cases fell in B-1 category and B-1 category has been descibed 'as per GST system log, there are no evidences of error or submission/filing of Tran-1.”
I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned 2/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.A.No.2203 of 2021 and from the few decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court particularly in Collector of Central Excise, Pune and others V Dai Ichi Karkaria Limited and others (1999) 7 SCC 448, wherein, it has held that credit availed under the provisions of the erstwhile Central Excise Act and Central Excise Rules, 1944 are indefeasible and are intended to reduce the cascading effect of the tax to benefit the consumers. There is no lapsing of such untilised credit. In the light of the above, I am inclined to allow this writ petition and accordingly the writ petition allowed in terms of the order in W.P.(MD).Nos.7093 and 11614 of 2020, and W.P.(MD).No.11614 of 2020
The respondents are directed to verify the records and returns of the petitioner under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and if the credit had been unutilised on the cut off date (i.e) 30.06.2017, the respondents shall suitably credit into the electronic credit register of the petitioner the amount which had remained unutilized and would not be transitioned under the GST regime. This exercise shall be carried by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. Assistant Registrar (Writs) //// / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) sn To The office of Superintendent of Control GST and Central Exercise (Thiruverumbur Range) 'B' Wing, 1st Floor, Annex Building No.1, Williams Road, Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli 620 001. +1 CC to M/s.S.RAGAVENTHRE, Advocate ( SR-10647[F] dated 08/03/2022 )
2022 RK(24/03/2022) 3P 3C 3/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.