TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1332
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid quarter relates to the period just before the Goods and Service Tax (hereinafter, 'GST') regime came into effect, the Petitioner had earlier filed ST-3 Return in which it had claimed Rs. 8,06,12,708/- as the CENVAT Credit. However, by the time it wanted to amend the said return, the case of the AAI is that the portal was not permitting the same, as the GST regime had already set in. 4. The submission of Mr. Prakash Sinha, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is that the TRAN-1 Form was however filed praying for allowing of the CENVAT Credit for the total amount of approximately Rs.17.40 crores. However, in respect of the same, the Adjudicating Authority took the position that since the same was not reflected in the ST-3 Return, the credit could not be given to the Petitioner. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under: "4.3.3 In view of above, I find that in terms of section 140, a registered person, other than composition taxpayer is entitled to take CENVAT credit of eligible duties and taxes carried forward in the return furnished under existing law relating to the period ending with the day immediately preceding the appointed day. The said amount of credit i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n subject to terms and conditions thereof .Further, in terms of sub-rule (3) of rule 117, the amount of credit specified in the application in FORM GST TRAN-1 is credited to the electronic credit ledger of the applicant maintained in FORM GST PMT-2 on the common portal. Further, in terms of rule 121 of the CGST Rules,2017 the amount credited under sub-rule (3) of rule 117 may be verified and proceedings under section 73 or, as the case may be, section 74 shall be initiated in respect of any credit wrongly availed, whether wholly or partly. Further, I also find that amount of CENVAT Credit Rs. 9,34,11,324/- is nowhere reflected in ST-3 returns flied/revised by the Noticee and further, there is no transitional provisions which allow the such credit without claiming the same under ST-3 returns. This CENVAT Credit amount is nowhere covered under the provision of section 140 of the CGST Act. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 9,34,11,324/- claimed in TRAN-1 is clearly in violation of statutory requirement of sub-section (1) and (8) of the section 140 of the CGST Act,2017. Therefore, the claim of Rs. 9,34,11,324/- is nowhere covered under section 140, thus the said Transitional credit is ineli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ification of the legitimacy. of the transitional credit availed by the Petitioner, they were called to furnish the relevant documents information. The Petitioner replied vide letter dated 16.12.2021 (Annexure-P9) that all documents have been submitted by them earlier multiple times and no discrepancy has been noticed and requested to drop the proceedings. However, since an excess amount of Rs. 9,34,11,325/- was found to be carried forward by the Petitioner which is not reflecting in ST-3 Return and invoices/payment details for the balance Rs. 8,06,12,708/- was not submitted by the Petitioner, a letter for consultation prior to issuance of SCN was sent vide letter dated 03.02.2022 giving them an opportunity to join the investigations latest by 09.02.2022. 9. The Petitioner appeared for pre-SCN consultation on 09.02.2022 and submitted their reply dated 09.02.2022. Regarding the Cenvat credit claimed in their return filed on 23.09.2017, they submitted a detailed statement of input invoices involved in that return. On being asked about the non-filing of return for Rs. 9,34,11,325/- they replied that they wanted to file revised ST-3 return but the ACES Portal did not allow to f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Respondent have not appreciated that the month of April, May and June, 2017 were the most crucial months and the same fall under the transitional period between the substitution of the service tax regime to GST. Hence, the procedural lapses are bound to occur. The process of filing the updated service tax return could not be completed also for the reasons that as per rule 7B, the assessee can revise the return filed under Rule 7 within a period of 90 days from the date of submission of the original return. It is stated the vide Notification No. 18/2017-ST, dated 22.6.2017 the time lines for filing the revised service tax return were reduced to 45 days from 90 days. The copy of said notification is already enclosed with the petition as Annexure-10. Hence due to this peculiar reason, the service tax return could not be filed in the due time capturing the entire figure of Rs. 17,40,24,033/-." 10. Reliance is also placed upon the order of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Filco Trade Centre Private Limited & Anr. (2023) 1 SCC 562 where glitches in the GST portal were recognized by the Supreme Court and relaxation of 90 days was given for filing claims of transitional c....