GST
TRT-2025-
Madras High Court
Date:-15-06-22
In:-
Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:-
Order date – 15 June 2022
Facts –
- The petitioner, M/s. Interplex Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., claims entitlement of the amounts of Rs.16,21,227/- and Rs.4,24,136/- as per proviso to Section 140(1) of CGST Act, the aforesaid components representing the closing balance of CENVAT credit as per their returns for the months of June 2017 and for Service tax for the period April to June 2017.
- The time limit stood extended on several occasions to provide for the technical glitches plaguing the systems and in order to accommodate the difficulty faced by taxpayers adapt to as well as the officials of the Department to adopt to the new procedure.
- The petitioner uploaded its TRAN-1 on 27.12.2017 claiming transition of the Cenvat Credit balance. However, an error had been occasioned therein wherein instead of mentioning the amount as Rs.16,21,227/- as per ER 1 return filed for the month of June 2017, it had mistakenly referred to the amount as Rs.76,395/-
- That apart, as regard the CENVAT credit of Rs.4,24,136/-, the amount had erroneously omitted to be mentioned at all. Two errors, one of erroneous reduction of CENVAT credit and omission of another component of CENVAT credit, thus figured in the original TRAN-1 filed.
- A representation was filed before Respondent on 28.12.2018 explaining the errors and seeking permission for availment of the credit to which the petitioner is admittedly, entitled but no response was received.
- Aggrieved the petitioner filed a writ petition.
Issue –
- Whether the end-date/cut-off date in two sets of timelines, one seeking transition and the other seeking revision of error in the return seeking transition, can be one and the same?
Order –
- The court relied on the case of M/s. BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF GST in which it was held that it does not stand to reason that the time limit for revision of a TRAN 1 return be identical to the timeline for filing of a return seeking transition.
- The purpose of revision is to enable correction/modification of a return of transition. In such an event, it would stand to reason that some additional time, over and above the timeline granted for a TRAN-1 return be provided by the respondent, in the later instance.
- Also it was observed that rule 120A does not, by itself, stipulate any time limit, though undoubtedly, the timeline stated under Rule 117 has to be read into Rule 120 as well. This would not, lead to a conclusion that the application of Rules 117 and 120A cannot be harmonized, to make them workable, viable and practical.
- The timelines under Rule 120A must be of a period over and above the timelines stipulated in Rule 117, therefore mandamus sought for by the petitioner was issued. Since the credits filed by the petitioner relate to Central Excise and Service both coming under Central jurisdiction, Respondent shall enable opening of the portal after that revision may be sought.
- Petition allowed.
Download Case Law
