Authorities Directed to Enable CENVAT Credit Transfer of Rs. 84,53,085 After Erroneous TRAN 1 Filing Between States

The HC directed authorities to facilitate the petitioner's CENVAT credit transfer of Rs. 84,53,085 by either reopening the portal for TRAN 1 filing in Maharashtra or allowing credit utilization in monthly GST 3B forms. The issue arose when petitioner erroneously filed TRAN 1 through their Andhra Pradesh branch instead of Maharashtra branch where they held centralized service tax registration. Following precedents from Calcutta HC and Punjab & Haryana HC, the court provided this practical solution without commenting on the merits of the credit claim. The petition was disposed of with no costs.

---

---

Issues:
Petitioner seeking direction for transitional credit of CENVAT, filing of declaration in form GST TRAN 1, and credit transfer issue.

Analysis:
The Petitioner approached the Bombay High Court seeking direction for the transfer of transitional credit of Rs. 84,53,085 of CENVAT by filing a declaration in form GST TRAN 1. It was revealed that the Petitioner mistakenly filed TRAN 1 through the Andhra Pradesh branch login instead of the Maharashtra branch GST login, where they held centralized service tax registration. Consequently, the CENVAT credit balance of eligible duties as of June 2017 was not transferred to the electronic credit ledger of either branch. The Assistant Commissioner forwarded the representation to the Deputy Commissioner (GST) for necessary action, confirming that the Petitioner had indeed filed TRAN 1. The main issue was determining how to give credit to the Petitioner for the CENVAT credit.

The Court directed that if feasible, the portal should be opened to enable the Petitioner to file its TRAN 1 return or revised return in Maharashtra. If this was not possible, the Assistant Commissioner was instructed to communicate this within two weeks. In such a scenario, the Petitioner should be allowed to utilize the credit in its monthly GST 3B Forms. The Court cited judgments from the Calcutta High Court and the Panjab & Haryana High Court, supporting a similar approach in related cases. The Petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, clarifying that no observations were made on the credit's merits. Additionally, the Court accepted the statement that the Petitioner had not availed of any other credit.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issue of transferring transitional credit of CENVAT to the Petitioner and provided a practical solution by allowing credit utilization in monthly returns if accessing the portal for filing TRAN 1 in Maharashtra was not feasible. The Court's decision was based on precedents from other High Courts, emphasizing the need for fair treatment in such cases without commenting on the credit's validity.

---