TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 162
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to the action of Respondent No. 4 as the Additional Commissioner (Respondent No. 2), being arbitrary and malicious, illegal and motivated, allegedly by deliberate concealment of material facts. Action is sought to be taken against Respondent No. 4 who is impleaded in his personal capacity. The Petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned show cause Nos. 04/2019-20 dated 23.04.2019, issued by the Respondent No. 2. 2. The case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner filed its revised ST-3 return on 26.09.2017 raising the input tax credit from 'Nil' to Rs. 4,39,44,304/-. The Petitioner was issued a notice on 23.03.2018 by the Respondents, which reads as follows: "Sir, Please refer to the TRAN-1 and revised TRAN-1 filed by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n a return, furnished under the existing law by him, in respect of the period ending with the day immediately preceding the appointed day in such manner as may be prescribed, provided that if the registered person furnished his return for the period ending with the day immediately preceding the appointed day within three months of the appointed day, such credit shall be allowed subject to the condition that the said return is either an original return or revised return where the credit has been reduced from that claimed earlier. However, it is noticed that you have claimed an amount of Rs. 4,39,44,537/- as per the revised return for the period April to June, 2017 filed on 26.09.2017, whereas the closing balance of Cenvat credit of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er affidavit. It is pointed out by Mr. Harpreet Singh, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondent, that the earlier notice had been issued under Rule 121 of the CGST Rules 2017, which empowers the Respondents to verify the amount of credit under Rule 117 (3), and also entitles the Respondents to initiate proceedings under Section 73 or, as the case may be, under Section 74 in respect of any credit wrongly availed, whether wholly, or partly. Mr. Harpreet Singh has pointed out that the replies submitted by the Petitioner from time to time were duly taken note of and considered while issuing the impugned show cause notice. In this regard, he has drawn our attention particularly to paragraph 4 of the show cause notice which reads as fol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e provisions of Section 140(8), ibid, restricting transition credit in GST to Centralised registered persons (separately registered in each State & eligible for credit post GST) as per the balance carried forward in the original return filed within 3 months subject to reduction of credit if made in the revised return, the averments made by them were also examined. It is noted that they filed original ST-3 return covering the months Feb and March 2017 (return for October 16 to March 17) on 24.04.2017 (due date 25.04.17) and then revised the same after GST on 22.07.2017 fn which Cenvat credit was revised from Rs. 1,20,84,849/- (excluding Cess) to Rs. 1,37,73,239/- (excluding Cess), But the additional Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,98,00,677/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y have taken Cenvat credit as admissible to them during the relevant period but have filed revised return for April to June 2017 to claim ineligible credit of Rs. 4,39,44,537/- (excluding Cess) attributing the same pertaining to the period from Feb 2017 to June 2017, which is not only found to be inadmissible under Section 140(8), ibid, as discussed and without prejudice to the said legal provisions also not otherwise admissible to them in view of the omissions and commissions discussed above." (emphasis supplied) 7. Mr. Harpreet Singh submits that the Respondents have merely followed the statutory scheme of first making inquiries, and premised on the information gathered, to issue the Show Cause Notice under Section 73 of the Act. ....