ORDER :

R. Raghunandan Rao, J.

The petitioner, who is involved in manufacturing of various items, had been registered, under the V.A.T. Act, Central Excise Act and Service Tax Regime. The petitioner had a credit balance, under the CENVAT Credit Rules, as of 30.06.2017.

2. The G.S.T. regime was introduced in the country with effect from 01.07.2017. On account of the introduction of the new tax regime, a transition had to take place from the old taxation acts to the G.S.T. regime. This transition, was regulated by Section 140 of the C.G.S.T. Act and the corresponding provisions of the State G.S.T.. Under this provision, a tax payer, who had tax credit to his account, under various Acts, was entitled to transition the tax credit to the G.S.T. regime.

3. The petitioner, also transitioned to the G.S.T. Tax regime, by claiming an amount of Rs.1,53,74,493/- to be the credit available to him. This claim of the petitioner was initially accepted and the petitioner was given a tax credit of Rs.1,53,74,493/-, in the electronic ledger of the petitioner. This tax credit was also utilized by the petitioner, for clearing the liabilities of the petitioner, under the G.S.T. regime.

4. The accounts of the petitioner were audited, by the respondent authorities, in the year, 2018. At that stage, the Superintendent of Central Tax, Srikakulam, who is the 5^th respondent herein was sent E-Mails, dated 10.04.2018 & 25.04.2018, pointing that the petitioner had claimed an excess credit of Rs.34,82,160/-, and the same would have to be reversed. The petitioner filed a reply to these E-Mails, on 09.07.2018, contending that, the petitioner had not availed any excess credit. The petitioner also contended that, a sum of Rs.34,82,160/-, said to be an excess availment, was infact credit which the petitioner was unable to take on account of Rule 6(3)(ii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. It is also contended that this credit entitlement was also intimated to the Excise Department also.

5. It was the case of the petitioner that, under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the petitioner, who was in the manufacture of taxable goods as well as exempted products, was required to deposit certain amounts, on a monthly basis, as per Rule 6 (3)(A)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Thereafter, the petitioner, at the end of the year, was entitled to either claim the excess CENVAT Credit available to the petitioner, on account of the monthly payments as opposed to actual tax liability, for the entire year or to pay the deficit amount. The petitioner, would also contend that, by virtue of such exercise, the petitioner was entitled to a CENVAT credit of Rs.34,82,160/- and the same had been claimed, along with the CENVAT credit of Rs.1,18,92,333/-, which had been disclosed in the returns, filed for January, 2017.

6. A show-cause notice, dated 21.02.2019, was issued by the 3^rd respondent to the petitioner, after considering the reply, on 18.09.2018. The petitioner, after availing a personal hearing, where the aforesaid objections were reiterated, the submissions were accepted and an adjudication order, dated 31.08.2023, came to be passed, determining that, an amount of Rs.34,82,160/-, CENVAT credit amount claimed by the petitioner, was not available and required to be reversed. Apart from this, the Adjudicating Authority, also took the view that, there was a wilful misstatement and suppression of facts as to the availability of CENVAT Credit as of 30.06.2017. As such, the petitioner would be liable for penalty as per Section 74, along with interest, under Section 50(3) of the C.G.S.T. Act.

7. Aggrieved by the said decision, dated 31.08.2023, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition.

8. Heard Sri M. V. J. K. Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Y. N. Vivekananda, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

9. Sri M. V. J. K. Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would contend that, the Adjudicat