Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2022 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 1215 - HC - GSTRefund of the Input Tax Credit and Capital Goods Credit - typographical error - Section 142(11)(b) and Section 142 r/w Section 58(4) of CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The credit which was earned by a registered dealer or an assessee under the erstwhile Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, Central Excise Act, 1944 and Finance Act, 1994 r/w CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 are indefeasible in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE VERSUS DAI ICHI KARKARIA LTD. [1999 (8) TMI 920 - SUPREME COURT], has held that credit availed under the provisions of the erstwhile Central Excise Act, 1944 and Central Excise Rules, 1944 are indefeasible and are intended to reduce the cascading effect of the tax to benefit the consumers. In this case, the petitioner had admittedly filed Form GST TRAN- 1 on time viz., 16.11.2017 but with mistakes. If the system which has been put in place to implement the provisions of GST and the Rules made thereunder does not facilitate rectification of mistakes in TRAN-1, such input tax credit has to be refunded back as retention of such amount by the department would be contrary to Article 265 of the Constitution of India. It would amount to collection of tax without authority of law. Ultimately the purpose of allowing an existing assessee to transition the credit was only a facilitation under the provisions of the respective GST Act and the Rules made thereunder - Input tax credit and/or capital goods credit which was validly availed under the provisions of the respective enactments which got subsumed into GST enactment cannot be denied. It has to be allowed to be carried forward for being adjusted towards tax liability under the GST regime, if indeed such credit was validly availed lying un-utilized in either the CENVAT account or VAT returns prior to the implementation of GST. The writ petition not withstanding the fact that the petitioner has got an alternate remedy before the Appellate Commissioner against the impugned order, as the officers acting under the provisions of the GST Act are bound by limitation under the Act - the respondents are therefore directed to either allow the rectification of TRAN-1 or in the alternative accept manual filling of TRAN-1 or make a suitable credit entry in the Electronic Cash Register of the petitioner after satisfying that the amount sought to be transmitted was indeed lying unutilised in the respective accounts of the petitioner as on 30.06.2017. Petition allowed.
|