TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1388
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ayakumar, ASG of India R1 To R5 By Sri. P.R. Sreejith, SC. JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner, a Private Limited Company, filed this writ petition challenging Exhibit P6 assessment order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 15.10.2018 to the extent of disallowing refund of input tax credit lying in the Electronic Credit Ledger of the petitioner under the head 'SGST credit'. 2. The petitioner company is engaged in the export of various spice extracts and Oleoresins and was registered under the erstwhile Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The petitioner obtained GSTIN registration and filed GST TRAN-1 form for transitioning the excess input tax credit lying in its VAT ledger onto the Electronic Credit Ledger of the petitioner. It is stated tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and the same is also binding on the appellate authority and therefore, it would be a mere exercise in futility for the petitioner to urge the same contentions before the appellate authority and only this Court can consider whether the circular is against the statutory provisions and Rules and also cited the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Filterco and another v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh and another [(1986) 2 SCC 103 = 1986(2) TMI 58-Supreme Court]. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited the decision of the Gujarat High Court in M/s Ford India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and others [2024 (12) TMI 570] to point out that the authorities cannot disallow refund by ignoring transitional credit in the Elect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nput tax for SGST amounts to Rs. 29,84,970/-. Upon verification with the Electronic Credit Ledger, it is understood that the amount of SGST Input tax carried forward under Transitional Provisions of CGST Act, 2017, i.e. Rs. 49,54,739/- is also included in the Net Input Tax for the month of November, 2017 while filing refund claim but the said amount was credited into the electronic credit ledger on 27-12-2017 which is not pertaining to the relevant tax period as per Rule 89(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017." 10. Section 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ('CGST Act' for short) provides for transitional arrangements for input tax credit. As per Rule 117 of the CGST Rules, if a registered person has to claim transitional credit ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....authority. The decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Moriroku UT India (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P and Ors. [(2008) 4 SCC 548] shows that the decision of the Allahabad High Court in MORIROKU UT INDIA PVT. LTD. (cited supra) was set aside by the Honourable Supreme Court. 13. As noticed earlier, the present writ petition was filed after the expiry of the period of limitation for filing the statutory appeal. In A. V. Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani and another [AIR 1961 SC 1506 = 1961 KLT OnLine 1276 (SC)], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus: "11. ...we must express our dissent from the reasoning by which the learned Judges of the High Court held that the writ petitioner was absolved fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Nonetheless, the period of limitation prescribed by an enactment for availing the alternative remedy provided thereunder in certain cases does provide indication as to what should be the "reasonable period" within which the writ jurisdiction has to be invoked." 15. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not so wide as to resurrect a cause of action which has become unenforceable on account of law of limitation. In Lt Col K. C. Chandra Bhanu v. Union of India [2026 KHC OnLine 572], a Division Bench of this Court held that when the issue is finally decided by a competent forum and attained finality, the maxim 'interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium' would apply. The Honourable Supreme Court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsuit the petitioner on the ground that alternative efficacious remedy is available and that be invoked by the writ petitioner. However, if the writ petitioner choses to approach the High Court after expiry of the maximum limitation period of 60 days prescribed under Section 31 of the 2005 Act, the High Court cannot disregard the statutory period for redressal of the grievance and entertain the writ petition of such a party as a matter of course. Doing so would be in the teeth of the principle underlying the dictum of a three Judge Bench of this Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (supra). In other words, the fact that the High Court has wide powers, does not mean that it would issue a writ which may be inconsistent with the le....