Bona fide TRAN-1 claim cannot defeat refund rights or attract penalty absent wilful suppression or tax evasion.

An openly disclosed but legally inadmissible TRAN-1 claim made solely to protect an otherwise payable refund did not extinguish the assessee's entitlement to refund of excess tax under the earlier regime. The refund claim had to be examined on its own merits, and interest was payable up to the date of the TRAN-1 filing. Penalty under the fraud-related transitional provisions could not be sustained because the claim was bona fide and lacked wilful misstatement, suppression, or intent to evade tax. The related interest demand was also unsustainable, and the punitive components founded on the mistaken transition filing were set aside, while the credit transition itself remained inadmissible.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was entitled to refund of the unutilized excess amount arising under the earlier sales tax regime notwithstanding an incorrect TRAN-1 transition claim; and (ii) whether penalty and interest could be sustained for the incorrect transitional claim under the GST transitional and penalty provisions.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee was entitled to refund of the unutilized excess amount arising under the earlier sales tax regime notwithstanding an incorrect TRAN-1 transition claim.

Analysis: The excess amount had already been determined under the assessment order and the assessee had sought refund well before the expiry of the transitional period. The claim for transition under GST was admittedly untenable, but the records showed that the assessee had disclosed its inability to carry forward the amount and had sought refund because the departmental delay had left the amount unprocessed. The statutory scheme under the earlier tax law contemplated refund of excess tax, and the transitional provisions did not extinguish the refund entitlement merely because an inadmissible credit claim was later made to protect the amount from being lost.

Conclusion: The refund claim was maintainable and had to be processed on merits with interest up to the date of the TRAN-1 filing.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty and interest could be sustained for the incorrect transitional claim under the GST transitional and penalty provisions.

Analysis: Penalty under the fraud-related provision required wilful misstatement or suppression with intent to evade tax. The claim here was fully disclosed as a protective measure and was not a case of tax evasion or clandestine availment of credit. Since the assessee's conduct was found bona fide and the incorrect transition was driven by the admitted delay in refund processing, the essential ingredients for penalty were absent. On the same reasoning, interest could not be pressed beyond the point where the refund claim was required to be acted upon.

Conclusion: The penalty and related interest demand based on wrongful transition were not sustainable and were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded to the extent that the refund was directed to be processed and the punitive components founded on the mistaken TRAN-1 filing were annulled, while the claimed credit transition itself was rejected as inadmissible.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee makes an openly disclosed, bona fide but legally inadmissible transitional credit claim solely to protect an otherwise payable refund, penalty provisions requiring wilful suppression or intent to evade tax do not apply, and the refund entitlement must still be examined on its own merits.

---