2022 (4) TMI 598 - HC - GST

Petitioner wins direction to consider rectified TRAN-1 form for input tax credit under Section 140

M/s. Sri Desikanathar Textiles Private Limited Versus Union of India, The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, The Nodal Officer/Assistant Commissioner, The Superintendent

The Madras HC allowed a writ petition seeking direction to consider petitioner's rectified manual TRAN-1 form for crediting ITC on stock of goods. The ... Seeking direction to respondent to consider the petitioner's rectified manual TRAN-1 filed along with the representation dated 18.06.2020 - crediting the ITC on stock of goods into the Electronic cash/Credit ledger of the petitioner - Section 140 of TNGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has been regularly corresponding with the respondents and with the Help Desk of the GST web-portal. The Help Desk of the GST web-portal responded to the petitioner on 18.10.2018 and has informed the petitioner that the issue was resolved and the problem persist the petitioner should raise a web-ticket at http://selfservice.gstsystem.in/ or call at 0120-4888999 - A further communication of the Help Desk also indicates that the respondents have agreed to help the petitioner in this regard. The petitioner has also sent an e-mail dated 26.11.2018, wherein the petitioner has given the particulars and that the petitioner was unable to transition the credit. There are several other communications, which indicate that the petitioner was in continuous touch with the respondents to ensure that the credit, which was attempted to be transitioned by filing Form in TRAN-1, was successful. As a matter of fact, the provisions of GST Act also does not provide for lapsing of the credit, which could not be successfully transitioned under the new regime while filing form correctly in TRAN-1. If the credit, which was availed during the regime that existed prior to 01.07.2017, it gives the indefeasible right to utilize such credit, even to those assessees, who were not under the taxable regime under the old Act, have been allowed to transition credit, as they were liable to pay tax. The respondents are directed to allow the input tax credit, after a scrutiny and verification by a competent officer that such credit could be transitioned but for wrong declaration in Form TRAN-1. The concerned jurisdictional officer is directed to examine the records and then come to an independent conclusion as to whether the petitioner was indeed entitled to transition credit by filing TRAN-1, in terms of Section 140 of the said Act r/w the Rules thereof but from the technical mistakes committed by the petitioner. If the credit was available to be transitioned, it cannot be denied. The writ petition is allowed subject to the condition that the credit, which was sought to be transitioned by the petitioner by filing a defective Form in GST TRAN-1 contains the correct details - petition allowed. Issues:Petitioner seeks Mandamus for credit of ITC on stock of goods in electronic ledger. Petitioner filed rectified manual TRAN-1 for the same.Analysis:The petitioner, a manufacturer, filed TRAN-1 under TNGST Act/CGST Act to transition input tax credit but mistakenly filled details in wrong section. Despite continuous correspondence with respondents and GST web-portal, credit was not transitioned. Respondents cited limitation period as a reason for opposition.The High Court referred to previous cases where relief was granted in similar situations. The Court emphasized the importance of substantial compliance over technicalities in granting Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefits. The Court upheld the order to allow the petitioner to file a revised Form TRAN-1 within a specified period.Referring to decisions from other High Courts, the Court highlighted the right to utilize pre-GST regime credits and the indefeasible nature of such credits. The Court directed the respondents to allow ITC after verification and scrutiny, ensuring the petitioner's entitlement to transition credit despite technical mistakes in filing TRAN-1. Cooperation in providing necessary documents was mandated within a specified timeframe.The Court concluded by disposing of the writ petition, providing detailed directions to the respondents for allowing ITC based on verification and compliance. The petitioner was given a timeline to cooperate and complete the necessary procedures. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.