TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Fresh Consideration of Input Tax Credit Claims; Court Directs Detailed Examination</h1> <h3>C. Prasannakumaran Unnithan, Leena P. Nair, Proprietrix Versus Gst Council, The Commissioner, Commissioner Of State Tax, Gst Council And Others</h3> C. Prasannakumaran Unnithan, Leena P. Nair, Proprietrix Versus Gst Council, The Commissioner, Commissioner Of State Tax, Gst Council And Others - TMI Issues:1. Appellants seeking mandamus to reopen portal for uploading FORM GST TRAN 1.2. Interpretation of Circular No.39/13/2018-GST.3. Claiming input tax credit for Excise Duty and Value Added Tax.4. Assessees' mistake in filing Writ Petitions.5. Estoppel due to earlier Writ Petitions.6. Withdrawal of earlier Writ Petitions.7. Consideration of input tax claim independently.Analysis:1. The controversy arose post-GST implementation when dealers needed to upload FORM GST TRAN 1 for availing input tax credit on stock. Two dealers filed Writ Petitions seeking to reopen the portal for uploading as the last date was preponed, and they had uploaded details but not the Form itself.2. Circular No.39/13/2018-GST addressed technical glitches in uploading FORM GST TRAN 1. The State Authorities rejected claims under this Circular, stating that dealers who uploaded the Form and claimed input for excise duties paid directly to manufacturers were not covered.3. The assessees admitted uploading FORM GST TRAN 1 but omitted Value Added Tax details for local purchases. They mistakenly believed separate Forms were required for Excise Duty and Value Added Tax. Now they seek to rectify this error to claim input tax credit for Value Added Tax.4. The assessees' earlier Writ Petitions were based on a mistaken premise, leading to a bonafide error. They now realize the omission of Value Added Tax details and seek to rectify it for a valid input tax claim.5. The assessees are estopped from raising contentions under the Circular due to the inadvertent omission of Value Added Tax details. The issue is compared to a previous judgment in Goods and Services Tax Network V. Leo Distributors.6. The Court permits the withdrawal of earlier Writ Petitions filed on a wrong premise without prejudice to the assessees' contentions. This allows for a fresh consideration of the input tax claim independently.7. The assessees cannot claim under the Circular, and their case must be considered based on other contentions independently. The department can resist the claim on the grounds of the assessees' default. The decision on the applicability of the cited judgment is left to the learned Single Judge for further consideration.In conclusion, the Writ Appeals are disposed of with directions to post the Writ Petitions before the learned Single Judge for a detailed examination of the input tax credit claim based on the correct details provided by the assessees.
TaxTMI 