9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red. 2. The aforementioned writ petition was filed by the petitioner with the submissions that in June, 2017, the petitioner-company had CENVAT Credit balance of Central Taxes amounting to Rs. 7,51,33,423/-. Petitioner had filed another TRAN-1 form for CENVAT Credit of Rs. 14,71,031/-, which was made admissible and credited to its Electronic Credit Ledger account on 26.10.2017. It was further submitted that the company could not amend TRAN-1 form as per the provisions of Goods and Services Tax Act (in short 'GST Act'). Therefore, direction was sought to be issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner-company for amendment of TRAN-1 form. In support of the prayer, learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon the ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 on 09.11.2017 but as per taxpayer the CENVAT Credit of 7.51 Cr did not reflect in TRAN-1. It was mentioned in the letter of jurisdictional tax authority letter that GSTN vide mail dated 06.08.2018 had communicated to the Commissionerate that TRAN-1 was successfully submitted on 26.10.2017 and 27.11.2017 but as per logs taxpayer had filed 0 (zero) in the disputed field instead of 7.51 Cr and no logs of error evidencing any technical glitch faced by taxpayer were found. Therefore, the Committee observed that the case was not as per the mechanism/process approved in 8th ITGRC for nontechnical cases. After the discussion and deliberation committee found that these cases did not seem to be qualified within the parameters recommended for co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgment clearly indicates that the respondents were directed to 'consider' the case of the petitioner for amendment of TRAN-1 form and to pass appropriate orders thereupon keeping in view the judgment in Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd's case, supra and the communication dated 09.05.2019. The respondents considered the judgment, the communication and other related aspects as per their wisdom and took a decision on 02.12.2019 as communicated vide letter dated 06.01.2020 for not permitting the petitioner to amend the TRAN-1 form. Whether the decision is in consonance with law or not is not to be gone into while deciding the contempt petition. It will be appropriate to refer here (2006) 3 SCC 674, titled A.P. SRTC and others Versus G. Srinivas R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay not examine the validity or tenability of the claim on merits, but require the authority to do so. 17. Where the High Court finds the decision-making process erroneous and records its findings as to the manner in which the decision should be made, and then directs the authority to "consider" the matter, the authority will have to consider and decide the matter in the light of its findings or observations of the court. But where the High Court without recording any findings, or without expressing any view, merely directs the authority to "consider" the matter, the authority will have to consider the matter in accordance with law, with reference to the facts and circumstances of the case, its power not being circumscribed by any observa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
