TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 588
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imited company and is a registered taxpayer under the provisions of the CGST/SGST Act. The dispute in this case pertains to the denial of transitional credit under Section 140 of the CGST Act, in relation to the Input Tax Credit available to the petitioner under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act. As per Section 140 of the CGST Act, the petitioner had earlier submitted applications in TRAN-1 and TRAN-2, seeking the carry forward of the said claim to the CGST regime on 27.12.2017. In the TRAN-1 filed in the year 2017, the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs. 88,04,678.87/- as the amount available to its credit which is to be carried forward to the CGST regime. 2. Later, owing to various discrepancies in submitting....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld be made. 5. Even though Ext.P2 was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 34974/2023, the said challenge was not entertained and the writ petition was dismissed as per Ext.P3 judgment. Subsequently, an assessment was carried out and as part of the same, Ext.P4 order was passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act in respect of the amounts covered by TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 submitted in 2017. In response to the show cause notice issued prior to Ext.P4, the petitioner submitted a reply highlighting the circumstances under which it happened to file, the modified TRAN-1 and TRAN-2, without referring to the figures included in the TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 submitted in the year 2017. However, as per Ext.P4, the contentions ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in a writ petition. To substantiate her contention with regard to the maintainability of a Writ Petition after the expiry of the period for filing an appeal, the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in S.K. Eldhose v. State Tax Officer, Muvattupuzha and Others [2024] 129 GSTR 507 (Ker), was relied on. 9. However, on going through the records, I find that the contention of the petitioner is with regard to a bona fide omission made by it, while submitting revised TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 in the year 2022, in the light of the directions of the Honourable Supreme Court. A clear explanation is offered by the petitioner, in the reply to the show cause notice issued before Ext.P4, which is to the effect that, the petitioner, while submitting ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r facts and circumstances of this case. 10. Now, when it comes to the merits of the contentions, it is to be noted that, even going by Ext.P4 order, it is evident that, the verification of the claim of credit as made in TRAN-1 application submitted by the petitioner in the year 2017, was done and the same was specifically referred to in Ext.P4 order. As per the verification report of the Central Tax Authority, out of Rs. 88,04,680/- availed by the petitioner as credit as per the original TRAN-1 filed, the petitioner was found eligible for Rs. 69,31,718.31/-. Thus, as far as the credit available to the petitioner as per the earlier regime is concerned, the same was verified by the competent authority and found that their eligibility is up....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of Rs. 88,04,680/- they had shown the figure of Rs 6,84,886/-, which is the additional claim of the petitioner. At the same time, in TRAN-2 application the credit claimed was nil, whereas, the credit availed by the petitioner in the TRAN-2 application earlier submitted was Rs. 2,01,681/-. This would indicate that there occurred a bonafide mistake, while submitting the revised TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 applications. It is to be noted in this regard that, under normal circumstances, it is highly improbable that, a person would intentionally mention a lesser figure in the revised TRAN-1 and TRAN-2, than mentioned in the original one, particularly when the amounts in the earlier applications were much higher. Since this is a case in which, denial of ....