Govt Company Loses GST Credit Claim After Missing Statutory 30-Day Window for Commissioner's Extension

Kerala govt-owned company challenged GST transitional credit rejection. SC upheld lower court's decision, finding appellant failed to obtain Commissioner's extension for credit claim within prescribed 30-day period. Despite applying after five years without requisite authorization, the credit application was correctly rejected under Section 140 of CGST Act. Writ appeal was consequently dismissed.

---

---

Issues involved: Challenge to rejection of transitional credit application under GST statutes.

Summary:
The appellant, a public limited company owned by the Government of Kerala, challenged the rejection of its transitional credit application under the GST statutes. The appellant availed transitional credit of excise duty and Kerala Value Added Tax paid on inputs and service tax paid under RCM for input services under GST. The appellant did not make an appropriate application for condonation of delay before the Commissioner, resulting in the rejection of the application. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, upholding the rejection of the application. The appellant appealed this decision.

Upon hearing both parties, the Court noted that Section 140 of the CGST Act allows a registered person to carry forward CENVAT credit/input tax credit. Sub-section (5) of Section 140 sets conditions for taking transitional credit, requiring the recording of invoices within thirty days from the appointed day, with a provision for extension by the Commissioner. The appellant failed to obtain an order from the Commissioner extending the limitation period beyond thirty days. The Court emphasized that an assessee can claim transitional credit only upon production of an order passed by the Commissioner extending the limitation period. As the appellant applied for the transitional credit after five years without the Commissioner's extension, the rejection of the application was deemed appropriate.

In conclusion, the Court found no illegality or impropriety in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ appeal.

---