TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 1443
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act, 2017. FACTS:- 2. The facts are in narrow compass and are not in dispute. The Headquarter of the petitioner's bank is in Mumbai, Maharashtra and the centralized Registration of petitioner's bank is also at Maharashtra under the Service Tax as well as under the Goods and Services Tax, 2017 (for short, the Act). 3. The Act came into being with effect from 01.07.2017 and the petitioner was entitled to enjoy the credit of Rs.1,41,26,69,646/-. The petitioner made efforts to file the Return in the official GST portal of Maharashtra, but because of technical glitch in the Maharashtra portal, his efforts went in vain. Petitioner admittedly, has a branch in Telangana and accordingly, on 18.10.2017, he filed the Returns in the portal of Telangana and took credit on the same day and transferred it on the same day to the portal of Maharashtra. 4. The petitioner was served with a pre-show cause notice on 03.09.2021 (Annexure P-16) wherein it was alleged that the credit availed by the petitioner through TRAN-I return filed by the Telangana registration is ineligible and requires to be reversed along with applicable interest and penalty. The petitioner promptly filed reply on 09.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmits that a combined reading of both the provisions makes it clear like cloudless sky that there is no bar in the Act which prohibits the petitioner to submit the return in the GST portal of Telangana where the petitioner's branch admittedly exists. The learned Additional Commissioner has erred in not examining aforesaid relevant aspect and misread Section 140 (1) and 140(4) of the Act. He further submits that in the instant case, there exists no disputed question of fact and only a question of law deserves to be answered. In this background, it will not be proper to relegate the petitioner to avail the Statutory remedy of appeal. Instead, this Court may decide the matter on merits. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs. The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority & Others 2023 (2) TMI 64 - SC. 8. Lastly, the learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise, Nagpur 1996 (81) E.L.T.3 (S.C.) and urged that the analogy which can be drawn from this judgment is that when the return is filed in the Telang....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Section 140 of the GST Act, was there any bar or prohibition for filing return in the GST portal of Telangana where the petitioner's branch admittedly exists? Since it is a pure question of law, in view of judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. (supra), we are not inclined to relegate the petitioner to avail the statutory alternative remedy. Justice Dipankar Datta in M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. (supra), speaking for the Bench, poignantly held as under: "8. That apart, we may also usefully refer to the decisions of this Court reported in (1977) 2 SCC 724 (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd.) and (2000) 10 SCC 482 (Union of India v. State of Haryana). What appears on a plain reading of the former decision is that whether a certain item falls within an entry in a sales tax statute, raises a pure question of law and if investigation into facts is unnecessary, the high court could entertain a writ petition in its discretion even though the alternative remedy was not availed of; and, unless exercise of discretion is shown to be unreasonable or perverse, this Court would not interfere. In the latter decision, this Court found the issue raised....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....40 of CGST Act, 2017 enabling the transitional arrangements for input tax credits from existing law to Goods and Service Tax are re-produced as under." (Emphasis Supplied) 16. A microscopic reading of this para makes it clear that it was an admitted fact in the show cause notice itself that the petitioner faced problem in filing return electronically because of technical glitch in the GST portal of Maharashtra. For this reason and considering the last date of filing return, the petitioner filed the return in the Telangana GST portal. 17. In the impugned order, respondent No. 2 reduced in writing the basic stand of the petitioner in the shape of bullet points. The relevant portion reads as under: "Reply to show cause notice: 13. M/s Standard Chartered Bank had submitted their reply to the show cause notice vide their letter dated 27th January 2022 which was received in this office on 22nd February 2022 submitted inter alia that: • That the premises on which the SCN issued is incorrect as it is based on the assumption that M/s SC India's Telangana branches were not registered under Service Tax and hence, transfer of transitional credit to Telangana G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it in the State of Telangana. 19. Respondent No. 2 rejected the stand of the petitioner mainly on the ground that the petitioner's centralised registration is in the State of Maharashtra and that nothing prevented the petitioner to file the return electronically in the portal of the same State. 20. It is apposite to refer to the relevant sub-sections of Section 140 of the Act on which learned counsel for the parties placed reliance during the course of argument: "Section 140: Transitional arrangements for input tax credit- (1) A registered person, other than a person opting to pay tax under section 10, shall be entitled to take, in his electronic credit ledger, the amount of CENVAT credit of eligible duties carried forward in the return relating to the period ending with the day immediately preceding the appointed day, furnished by him under the existing law in such manner as may be prescribed: Provided that the registered person shall not be allowed to take credit in the following circumstances, namely:-- (i) where the said amount of credit is not admissible as input tax credit under this Act; or (ii) where he has not furnished al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a registered person other than a person opting to pay taxes under Section 10 shall be entitled to take, in his electronic credit ledger, the amount of CENVAT credit. Undisputedly, the registration number/Permanent Account Number of the petitioner is same nationwide. Thus, sub-section (1) of Section 140 does not permit the respondents to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner was obliged to file return electronically only in the GST portal of Maharashtra. 22. Sub-section (4) of Section 140 of the Act is relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, but we do not see any relevance of this provision for deciding the present issue. 23. So far as sub-section (8) of Section 140 of the Act is concerned, it is apposite to mention that a registered person having centralised registration under the existing law (Service Tax Law) has obtained a registration under the Act, such person shall be allowed to take in his electronic credit ledger, credit of the amount of CENVAT credit carried forward in a return, furnished under the existing law by him, in respect of the period ending with the day immediately preceding the appointed day i.e., 01.07.2017. 24. Admittedly, the pe....