2018 (8) TMI 1415 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT – 2018 (16) G. S. T. L. 529 (Guj.) – Carry forward of balance CENVAT Credit as on 30.06.2017 – migration to GST Regime – petitioner did not file return within stipulated time – Held that:- Unless there is some prima facie evidence of genuine attempts at filing the returns having failed on account of technical errors, accepting a bald declaration by the petitioner would virtually amount to extending the time limit for filing the returns and this would lead to chaotic results.
–
There is nothing on record to suggest that all throughout from 01.07.2017 till 27.12.2017, the petitioner made multiple efforts at filing the returns making necessary declarations of unused CENVAT Credit – In absence of any
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
fly stated, the facts are that the petitioner, a private company is engaged in manufacturing activity. As on 30.06.2017, i.e. the last date of CENVAT regime, the petitioner has CENVAT Credit in the ledger account to the tune of ₹ 8.80 lakhs (rounded off). With the introduction of GST, section 140 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act provided for transfer of such CENVAT Credit. Rule 117 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules laid down time limit for filing return and making a declaration for the unused CENVAT Credit. Such time limit initially granted was for three months and extended from time to time. Lastly, it was extended till 27.12.2017. Admittedly, the petitioner did not file return which was to be done electronically till su
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
or the petitioner, we do not find any reason to interfere. We are conscious, as pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that some High Courts have intercepted and obviated the genuine difficulties in uploading the returns due to technical errors. However, facts of each case would have to be minutely examined. Unless there is some prima facie evidence of genuine attempts at filing the returns having failed on account of technical errors, accepting a bald declaration by the petitioner would virtually amount to extending the time limit for filing the returns and this would lead to chaotic results. 5. In this context, we notice that there is nothing on record to suggest that all throughout from 01.07.2017 till 27.12.2017, the petitioner m
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =