TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 627
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... duties cannot be transitioned. Brief Facts:- 3. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of industrial catalysts. On 26 August 2017, the petitioner filed its GST Form TRAN-1 for transition of credit of Rs. 4,31,30,239/- as per Section 140 of the CGST Act. However, subsequently, the petitioner realised that they had inadvertently failed to claim credit of Rs. 1,16,29,351/- relating to 3 Bills of entries in the ER-1 return filed for the month of May/June 2017. This fact was brought to the notice of the respondents by the petitioner within one year from May/June 2017 vide letter dated 16 February 2018. The petitioner requested the respondents to permit filing of revised Form TRAN-1, either manually or by reopening the GST portal. 4. On 7 January 2021, the respondents issued a letter directing the petitioner to reverse the credit which was not taken in the ER-1 return. The petitioner replied to the said letter and stated that no credit has been taken and, therefore, no question of reversing. 5. On 22 July 2022, the Supreme Court in case of Union of India Vs. Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. 2022 (63) GSTL 162 (S.C.) with respect to various technical is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f May/June 2017 was brought to the notice of the respondents in February 2018 within one year from May/June 2017 and sought redressal of the grievance. In support of her submission, she relied upon the following decisions:- (i) Aberdare Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (2024) 21 Centax 227 (Bom.). (ii) NRB Bearings Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of State Tax (2024) 15 Centax 444 (Bom.). (iii) Jekson Vision Private Limited Vs. Union of India (2023) 120 GSTR 91. (iv) Sowmiya Spinners Pvt. Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (2024) 23 Centax 58 (Mad.). (v) National Internet Exchange of India Vs. Union of India 2021 (147) G.S.T.L. 225 (Del.). (vi) Union of India Vs. Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Submissions of the Respondents:- 10. Per contra, Ms. Masurkar, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the petition and stated that in accordance with the notification dated 19 February 2010, the revision of the excise returns could have been only electronically and not manually. She submitted that since in the instant case, the petitioner has not revised the excise returns e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Bills of entries is dated May/June 2017 i.e. prior to 1 July 2017. As observed above from 1 July 2017 i.e. post GST, the erstwhile portals were not functional because of introduction of the GST portal. The period of one year from the date of documents in the present case would expire in May/June 2018. The petitioner on realising the mistake that they have inadvertently not claimed the credit of duties with respect of the documents of May/June 2017, immediately vide letter dated 16 February 2018 informed the GST authorities about the said inadvertent error and requested for transitioning the credit attributable to these 3 documents. This letter is within a period of one year specified in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 referred to above. There was no response to the said letter by the respondents. The respondents ought to have guided the petitioner on account of the fact of transitioning from the old regime to the new regime on this issue moreso when there is no dispute otherwise that the petitioner is not eligible to take the credit. 15. It is also important to note that the petitioner had filed its TRAN-1 on 26 August 2017 without claiming the credits under consideration. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spondents is ill-founded. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner is justified in placing reliance on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Jekson Vision Private Limited (supra) wherein on very similar facts transition was allowed. The relevant paragraphs of the said decision supporting the submission of the petitioner reads as under:- "8. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the materials on record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has fulfilled the condition of section 140(1) of the CGST Act for carry forward of the Cenvat credit to the GST regime. The denial of carry forward of such transitional credit by the respondents on the ground that manual excise return filed by the petitioner cannot be said to be valid return, is without any basis. 9. It is a trite law that computerization of return filing is merely a means for processing the disclosures and claims of the assessee in a transparent and efficient manner. However, if there is any shortcoming in the computerized facility, as it has occurred in the facts of the case when the petitioner was unable to file the original excise return d....