SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Mad) 2422

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, JJ.
Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai South Commissionerate, Chennai & Others – Appellants
Versus
M/s. Bharat Electronics Limited, Rep.by its General Manager, Chennai – Respondent
W.A. No. 2203 of 2021
Decided on : 18-11-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : V. Sundareswaran, Standing Counsel, G. Shivadas, Senior Counsel.
For the Respondent:P. Jayalakshmi, Advocate.

Headnote:

CGST Act, 2017 - Section 140 and Rule 120A - Goods and Service Tax - Input Tax Credit - Deprivation of - It is relevant to note that Input Tax/CENVAT Credit was available under existing/prior indirect Tax laws such as VAT, Entry tax and Central Excise and Service Tax, both State and Union intended to provide a mechanism for transition of credit that was legitimately earned and remained unutilised under various fiscal laws existing at the time of introduction of GST. With this avowed objective, GST law permitted registered/taxable persons under GST law to transition credit that was earned and lying to the credit of such registered/Taxable person under existing/prior laws to GST - Held, When Electronic Credit Ledger did not reflect amount as it had not transitioned in Electronic Credit Ledger, enquiries were made with department by respondent. On such enquiry, it was informed by department that amount would not be transitioned in view of mistake in not reflecting correct amount in Column 6 of Form TRAN-1 - Decision of Allahabad High Court turned on facts that claim to transition to certain Input Tax Credit was being made for first time, while in present case, there is only a clerical error - Form TRAN-1 - Thus, decision of Allahabad High may not apply to the facts of the present case - Needless to state, it is open for Revenue to thereafter examine legality/correctness or otherwise of claim of credit stated to be earned under erstwhile regime and transitioned to GST by the respondent/assessee in accordance with law - Writ appeal disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

Mohammed Shaffiq, J.

(Prayer: This Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to allow the above writ appeal by setting aside the impugned order dated 21.06.2021 passed in W.P.No.2937 of 2019.)

1. The petitioner/respondent herein aggrieved by the action of the Revenue/appellant herein in not permitting them to revise the Form TRAN-1 resulting in deprivation of the Input Tax Credit filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.2937 of 2019.

2. This Hon'ble Court on hearing the above matter was pleased to direct the respondent/appellant herein to enable the petitioner/respondent herein to file a revised Form TRAN-1, by opening of the portal and that such exercise was to be completed within a period of 8 weeks from the date of issue of the impugned order. The Revenue, aggrieved by the above order of the Learned Single Judge has preferred this intra Court appeal.

3. The respondent had lodged a claim for Input Tax/CENVAT Credit by filing form TRAN-1, admittedly, within time and disclosed a credit of Rs.14,97,28,201/- as Balance Credit in Column 5(a) of form TRAN-1, while showing a sum of Rs.80,98,936/- in Column 6 of form TRAN-I, though the respondent ought to have disclosed the sum of Rs.14,97,28,201/- in Column 6 of form TRAN-1 as well, on an erroneous/mis-construction as to the purpose of the said column in form TRAN-1.

4. It is relevant to note that Input Tax/CENVAT Credit was available under the existing/prior indirect Tax laws such as VAT, Entry tax and Central Excise and Service Tax, both the State and Union intended to provide a mechanism for transition of credit that was legitimately earned and remained unutilised under various fiscal laws existing at the time of introduction of GST. With this avowed objective, the GST law permitted the registered/taxable persons under GST law to transition the credit that was earned and lying to the credit of such registered/Taxable person under the existing/prior laws to GST.

5. It may be relevant to note the Statement of Objects and Reasons with respect to Goods and Service Tax (GST):

    “The Constitution is proposed to be amended to introduce the goods and services tax for conferring concurrent taxing powers on the Union as well as the States including Union territory with Legislature to make laws for levying goods and services tax on every transaction of supply of goods or services or both. The goods and services tax shall replace a number of indirect taxes being levied by the Union and the State Governments and is intended to remove cascading effect of taxes and provide for a common national market for goods and services. The proposed Central and State goods and services tax will be levied on all transactions involving supply of goods and services, except those which are kept out of the purview of the goods and services tax.” (Emphasis supplied)

6. Section 140 of the GST Act provided for the transitional arrangement for Input Tax Credit while also imposing certain limitations/exclusion in respect of certain class of credit under the proviso to sub-section(1) of Sec 140 of CGST Act, 2017. Sec 140 of the CGST Act, 2017 also provided that the transition of credit may be made in accordance with the manner prescribed. Rule 117 of the CGST Act, 2017 prescribed the method and the manner for availing input tax credit. The relevant portions of the said rule reads as under:

    “117.Tax or Duty Credit Carried Forward under any Existing Law or on Goods Held in Stock on the Appointed Day (Chapter-XIV: Transitional Provisions)

(1) Every registered person entitled to take credit of input tax under section 140 shall, within ninety days of the appointed day, submit a declaration electronically in Form GST TRAN-1, duly signed, on the common portal specifying therein, separately, the amount of input tax credit to which he is entitled under the provisions of the said section:

Provided that the Commissioner may, on the recommendations of the Council, extend the period of ninety days by a further period not e

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top