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>GST Credit Challenge Upheld: Order Set Aside, Respondent Directed to Re-examine Claim Within Three Months with Supporting Documents</h1> <h3>M/s SV HALAVAGALI AND SONS Versus THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX 1, THE PRINCIPAL ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF SYSTEMS AND DATA MANAGEMENT, GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE GST, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES</h3> M/s SV HALAVAGALI AND SONS Versus THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX 1, THE PRINCIPAL ADDITIONAL ... Issues involved: Challenge to order of Superintendent of Central Excise regarding GST credit claim under incorrect column.Summary:The petitioner, a partnership firm registered under the Goods and Services Tax Act, challenged the order of the Superintendent of Central Excise regarding a show cause notice issued for scrutiny of GST returns. The petitioner claimed CENVAT credit of Central Excise duty on stock of goods held on a specific date. The respondent issued a notice based on the petitioner's claim under an incorrect column of the form. The petitioner contended that the claim was made inadvertently and provided additional documents to support the correct claim. The respondent relied on Section 107 of the CGST Act, while the petitioner cited a similar case from the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court where relief was granted upon verification of the claim. The Court observed that the petitioner's claim should have been filed under a different column and set aside the impugned order, remitting the matter back to the respondent for consideration. The Court directed the respondent to verify the claim under the correct column and grant relief if supported by documents. The Court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the merits of the claim and instructed the respondent to process the petitioner's claim within three months from the date of the order.In conclusion, the petition challenging the order of the Superintendent of Central Excise was disposed of with directions for reconsideration of the petitioner's claim under the appropriate column of the CGST Rules, emphasizing the need for supporting documents for the claim to be established and consequential relief to be granted.
TaxTMI 