M/s. TVS Motor Company Limited, rep. by its Authorized Signatory Versus The Assistant Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Hosur, The Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax, Salem And The Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi
GST
2018 (9) TMI 371 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – 2018 (16) G. S. T. L. 17 (Mad.)
MADRAS HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 9-7-2018
Writ Petition No. 16984 of 2018 And WMP. No. 20237 of 2018
GST
MR. T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.
For The Petitioner : Mr. R. Parthasarathy for M/s.Lakshmi Kumaran & Sridharan Associates
For The Respondents : Mr. V. Sundareswaran, SPC
ORDER
Mr. V. Sundareswaran, learned Senior Panel Counsel accepts notice for the respondents. Heard both. By consent
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Tax Act, 2017 is illegal and arbitrary and has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also submitted that the the first respondent has only made a decision by denying the transitional credit, which the petitioner is statutorily entitled to under Section 140(1) of the said Act.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on facts, the petitioner has got an excellent case and when a notice was issued on 04. 1. 2018 to reverse the credit, within 24 hours, the petitioner submitted a reply dated 04. 1. 2018, followed by another reply dated 20. 1. 2018 wherein the petitioner relied upon certain decisions and contended that Since Section 140(1) of the said Act talks about carry forward of CENVAT credit bal
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
said Act.
6. The respondent states that the impugned order is only a show cause notice. This Court is unable to agree with the said stand taken by the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the Revenue, as a show cause notice cannot pre-judge the issue. Had the first respondent issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to state as to why the transitional credit claimed by them cannot be granted or should be directed to be reversed, then it would be a different matter. However, in the impugned proceedings, the first respondent denied the credit and all that has been granted is 15 days' time to reverse the credit, which, according to the first respondent, is inadmissible. These are sufficient grounds to hold that the impugned orde
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =