2022 (2) TMI 934 - HC - GST

Petitioner denied input service credit refund under Section 142(3) CGST Act for failing prescribed procedures

M/s Rungta Mines Limited Versus The Commissioner of Central Goods & Service s Tax and Central Excise, The Commissioner (Appeals), Central Goods & Services Tax and Central Excise, 2, The Asst. Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax And Central Excise, Division I, Jharkhand

M/s Rungta Mines Limited Versus The Commissioner of Central Goods & Service s Tax and Central Excise, The Commissioner (Appeals), Central Goods & Services ... Issues Involved:1. Legitimacy of the refund claim under Section 142(3) of the CGST Act.2. Applicability of Section 140(5) of the CGST Act for transitional credit.3. Compliance with procedural requirements under the existing law for claiming CENVAT Credit.4. Interpretation of transitional provisions and vested rights under the CGST Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Legitimacy of the Refund Claim under Section 142(3) of the CGST Act:The petitioner sought a refund of CENVAT Credit for service tax paid on 'port services' under Section 142(3) of the CGST Act. The court examined whether the petitioner was entitled to such a refund under the existing law. Section 142(3) stipulates that refund claims should be disposed of per the existing law, and any amount accruing should be paid in cash. However, the court found that the petitioner did not have an existing right to claim a refund under the previous law, as the service tax paid on 'port services' was not utilized for export, which is a prerequisite under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.2. Applicability of Section 140(5) of the CGST Act for Transitional Credit:The petitioner argued that under Section 140(5) of the CGST Act, they should be allowed to carry forward the CENVAT Credit. Section 140(5) allows credit for inputs or input services received after the appointed day if the tax was paid under the existing law and recorded in the books within 30 days. However, the court noted that the services were received in April 2017, and the invoice was generated in May 2017, making Section 140(5) inapplicable. The petitioner failed to claim this credit in their ER-1 return and thus could not carry it forward in TRAN-1.3. Compliance with Procedural Requirements under the Existing Law for Claiming CENVAT Credit:The court highlighted that the petitioner did not claim the CENVAT Credit in their ER-1 return due to the late receipt of the original invoice. The petitioner acknowledged this omission and instead claimed the credit in their ST-3 return, which was incorrect as they were not an output service provider. The court emphasized that the petitioner’s failure to comply with procedural requirements under the existing law resulted in the loss of the right to claim the credit.4. Interpretation of Transitional Provisions and Vested Rights under the CGST Act:The petitioner relied on various judgments to argue that transitional provisions should be purposefully construed to preserve accrued rights. The court agreed with the principle but found that the petitioner did not have an accrued right to the refund on the appointed day. The court also clarified that Section 142(3) does not create new rights but preserves existing ones, and the petitioner had no existing right to refund under the previous regime.Conclusion:The court concluded that the petitioner failed to claim the CENVAT Credit as per the existing law and wrongly claimed it in their ST-3 return. The petitioner was not entitled to a refund under Section 142(3) of the CGST Act as they did not meet the procedural requirements, and the service tax paid was not for export services. The writ petition was dismissed, and the impugned orders were upheld as well-reasoned and legally sound.