9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iples of natural justice. (c) For a declaration that the impugned Order No. 1826 dated 13.12.2019 passed by Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals) denying the carry forward of disputed credit of Rs. 30,28,48,166/- in Form GST TRAN-1 has been passed in clear violation of the legal provisions on account of non-application of mind to confirm a non-existent demand showing the sole intention of the department to harass and confirm a demand which has no legs to stand; (d) For a declaration that action of Respondent No. 4 in blocking the SGST amounting to Rs. 30,29,99,999/- and Cess amounting to Rs. 13,76,62,229/- in February, 2020 in the Credit Ledger against the demand of Rs. 37,03,90,184/- along with interest amounting to Rs. 4,18,89,607.65 and penalty amounting to Rs. 3,70,39,018.40, as confirmed by learned Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals)and subsequently unblocking and adjusting the credit of SGST amounting to Rs. 30,29,99,999/- on 25.11.2020 against the abovestated demand is arbitrary, illegal and bad in law. (e) Upon such declaration, the DCST or any other competent authority be directed to reverse the credit on consumables amounting to Rs. 30,29,99,999/- in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the petitioner on following grounds, namely; (i) Petitioner availed input tax credit of Rs. 31,90,42,496/- on purchase of consumables which it was not entitled to avail in terms of Section 18(8)(viii) of JVAT Act and, accordingly, transition of said credit under the GST Act was impermissible. (ii) Petitioner availed input tax credit on capital goods amounting to Rs. 6,79,42,018/- which was also not available to Petitioner in terms of provisions of Section 18 (5) of JVAT Act and, thus, transitioning of the same under the GST Act was illegal. 4. Against the aforesaid show cause notice, petitioner filed a detailed reply and rebutted all the allegations made in the show cause notice. However, Assessing Officer i.e. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Bokaro, vide its order dated 08.01.2018, denied transitioning of the aforesaid credit under GST regime and, accordingly, raised a demand of Rs. 37,03,90,184/- upon the petitioner company along with interest amounting to Rs. 4,18,89,607.65/- under Section 50 of JGST Act and even imposed penalty amounting to Rs. 3,70,39,018.40/- under Section 73 (9) of JGST Act on the ground that transitioning of inadmissible input tax credit under th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Usha Martin Limited (supra). 10. In view of aforesaid admission by the parties at Bar, this court deems it fit to extract the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid Judgment for ready reference, as under:- "(2) By the impugned adjudication proceedings initiated under section 73 of the C.G.S.T. Act, 2017, respondent No. 1-Additional Commissioner, C.G.S.T. and Excise, Jamshedpur has disallowed the Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 10,21,05,096/- carried forward by the petitioner by filing TRAN-1, in terms of Section 140 of the C.G.S.T. Act, 2017 by the impugned order-in-original dated March 30, 2022 (annexure-1)." "18. The enumerated conditions under which the registered person shall not be entitled to avail of the credit of input tax are not one which are applicable to the case of the present petitioner. The show-cause notice under which the instant adjudication proceedings were initiated is worded allege similar contraventions under the CEA, Finance Act, 1994 and the CCR as the previous show-cause notices issued under the existing law against the petitioner relating to contravention of the C.E.A., Finance Act and C.C.R. The adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... makes it clear that such a proceeding can be initiated for non-payment of any tax or short payment of such tax or for erroneous refund of such tax or for wrongly availing or utilizing the input-tax credit which are available under the C.G.S.T. Act. Section 73 does not speak of Cenvat credit as the C.G.S.T. Act does not provide for Cenvat credit rather the term has been subsumed in the expression input-tax credit both relating to the supply of goods or services. The assumption of jurisdiction by respondent No. 1 to determine whether the Cenvat credit was admissible under the existing law by invoking provisions of section 73 of the C.G.S.T. Act was therefore not proper in the eye of law. 19. This leads us to the next question whether a registered person could transition inadmissible Cenvat credit of the existing regime to the G.S.T. regime under section 140 of the C.G.S.T. Act without any check or proceeding against him. We have to then advert to section 174 of the C.G.S.T. Act to find the answer. Section 174 relates to repeal and saving and has been engrafted under the chapter XXIs relating to miscellaneous provisions. Pursuant to the 101 Constitutional amendment, articles 246A, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication proceedings and the order-in-original dated March 30, 2022 are accordingly quashed. 23. However, respondent-authorities are at liberty to initiate proceedings under the provisions of the existing law, i.e. C.E.A. 1944, Finance Act, 1994 read with C.C.R., 2004 against the petitioner for the relevant tax period in accordance with law." (Emphasis supplied) 11. In view of the settled proposition of law, the instant writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order dated 10th November, 2022 passed in the case of Usha Martin Limited (supra) and the impugned adjudication Order dated 08.01.2018 (Annexure-9) and the Appellate Order dated 13.12.2019 (Annexure-15) are, hereby, quashed and set aside. Since Respondents have already recovered an amount of Rs. 30,29,99,999/- against the impugned demand by reversing the credit available in electronic Credit Ledger of the petitioner company, we further direct the Respondents to restore the amount of Rs. 30,29,99,999/- along with statutory interest in electronic Credit Ledger of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of the order. 12. However, the Respondent-authorities are at liberty to initiate proceeding unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
