2024 (1) TMI 1359 - HC - GST

Denial of transitional credit - petitioner could not file Form 66 within the time limit for the reason that during this period the petitioner did not have the GST registration number and later the petitioner had applied for GST registration - HELD THAT - Petitioner had filed TRAN 2 Form for the financial year 2017- 18. the petitioner had admitted the irregularity however he could not rectify the irregularity till the order came to be passed. Section 140 (3) of the CGST Act read with Rule 117 (4) (a) (i) of the CGST Rules 2017 provides for carrying forward transitional credit in TRAN 2 Form. The petitioner admittedly did not file the correct form within the time frame prescribed and therefore the petitioner was not entitled to claim the trans credit of Rs. 20, 22, 652/- which has been denied vide the impugned order on which interest and penalty has been levied. There is a provision of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act against the impugned order. Instead of approaching the appellate authority as prescribed under the statute the petitioner has approached this Court in this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. This Court does not find that the respondent assessing authority has committed any error of jurisdiction or manifest error of law which warrants this Court to entertain this writ petition when the remedy of statutory appeal is available to the petitioner. The petitioner is permitted to enable the remedy of appeal if he so advised against the impugned order. If the petitioner files the appeal within a period of three weeks against the impugned order in Exhibit P-13 the same shall be considered expeditiously by the appellate authority on merit without going into the question of limitation - Petition dismissed.

Summary

The petitioner's writ petition challenging the denial of transitional credit was dismissed by the High Court. The petitioner failed to file Form 66 within the prescribed time frame due to a registration issue, leading to the denial of the credit. The Court found no error in the assessing authority's decision and directed the petitioner to pursue the remedy of appeal within three weeks.