IN THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM AT GANGTOK
MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, J.
SICPA India Private Limited and Another – Appellants
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
WP (C) No. 54 of 2023
Decided On : 10-06-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. alternative remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 2. inherent right to refund of unutilized itc upon closure. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. setting aside impugned order allowing petitioner's claim. (Para 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT
MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, J.
1. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) and Central Excise, Gangtok Division, Gangtok, Sikkim, vide Order dated 08-02-2022, rejected the refund application filed by the Petitioners, claiming unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC), lying in Electronic Credit Ledger amounting to Rs. 4,37,61,402/- (Rupees four crores, thirty seven lakhs, sixty one thousand, four hundred and two) only, upon discontinuance of business:
(i) The Petitioners were before the Additional Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Siliguri Appeals Commissionerate, assailing the same.
2. The Appellate Authority, vide Order dated 22-03-2023, upheld the Order dated 08-02-2022, of the Assistant Commissioner (supra). It was reasoned that on a combined reading of Sections 54(3) and 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter, the “CGST Act”), it is evident that the current regulations do not provide for refund of unutilized ITC in case of discontinuation or closure of business. That, it is evidently clear from the provisions mandated in Section 54(3) of the CGST Act which is restricted to circumstances under which the unutilized ITC is allowed for refund, discontinuation/closure is not one of them.
3. In the instant Petition, the prayers put forth inter alia are to quash, delete and set aside the impugned Order dated 22- 03-2023, passed by the Respondent No.3 rejecting the claim for refund of unutilized ITC, on closure of its business. Further, to order that, proviso to Section 54(3) of the CGST Act is not applicable in respect of refund of unutilized balance of ITC under Section 49(6) of the CGST Act.
4. The Petitioners case summarized is that, it was engaged in the business of manufacturing security inks and solutions with GST registration in the State of Sikkim. The manufacturing units of the Petitioners were in full operation in the pre-GST regime. The Petitioners in January, 2019, decided to discontinue its operation in the State of Sikkim, pursuant to which the Petitioners sold all the machineries and manufacturing facilities from April, 2019 to March, 2020. At the time of sale of assets the Petitioners had appropriately reversed the ITC as per the applicable provisions under the GST law. The Petitioners had accumulated balance of ITC amounting to Rs. 4,37,61,402/- (Rupees four crores, thirty seven lakhs, sixty one thousand, four hundred and two) only, on account of the closure of its business and accordingly claimed refund of such unutilized ITC balance, in terms of Section 49(6) of the CGST Act, which entails that the balance in Electronic Credit Ledger after payment of tax, penalty, fee or in every amount payable may be refunded in accordance with the provisions of Section 54 of the CGST Act, which was refused as reflected supra and has given rise to this Petition:
(i) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that Section 49(6) of the CGST Act provides for refund of the balance in Electronic Cash Ledger and Electronic Credit Ledger after payment of tax in accordance with the provisions of Section 54 of the CGST Act which lays down the procedure for refund. Section 54(3) of the CGST Act is the exception carved out in the provision, which requires that a registered company may claim refund of unutilized ITC at the end of any tax period, provided that, no refund of unutilized ITC shall be allowed except as provided in Section 54(3)(i) and (ii) of the CGST Act. It is contended that the said exemption cannot take away the vested right of ITC accrued to the Petitioners and refund thereof under Section 49(6) of the CGST Act. The Appellate Authority has failed to discuss as to why the provisions of Section 49(6) is not applicable in the Petitioners case. To buttre
The balance of unutilized input tax credit remaining in an electronic ledger upon the permanent closure of a business is refundable, as the law does not expressly prohibit such claims, and the state ....
Refund of unutilized input tax credit is a strictly statutory right confined to specific situations prescribed by law. It cannot be granted upon business closure unless explicitly enumerated by the l....
The court established that transitional CENVAT credit can be carried forward into the GST regime and utilized for claiming refunds under the CGST Act, rejecting hyper-technical interpretations by aut....
Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit due to closure is not permitted under Section 11B(2)(c) post 01.04.2012 amendments.
Transitional credit recognized in GST Form TRAN-1 must be considered for refund claims under Section 54 of the CGST Act, regardless of its verification timing.
The main legal point established is that the statutory scheme of refund under Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 applies to cases of accumulation of unutilised input tax credit due to an inverted du....
Taxpayers are eligible for refunds of accumulated input tax credit even when input and output supplies are identical, as clarified through legislative amendments.
The eligibility of a merged entity for ITC refund is recognized under GST, allowing inclusion of export proceeds from previous tax regimes.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.