PRIVI ORGANICS INDIA LIMITED Versus UNION OF INDIA
GST
2018 (10) TMI 1043 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT – TMI
GUJARAT HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 17-10-2018
R\/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16106 of 2018
GST
MR AKIL KURESHI AND MR B.N. KARIA, JJ.
\nFor The Petitioner (s) : Mr Dhaval Shah (2354)
\nORAL ORDER
\n(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
\n1. The petitioners' main prayer is for a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioners to file revised declaration in Form TRAN1 for the left over CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs. 1,06,08,998\/. In this context, the petitioners have also challenged the vires of Rules117 and 120A of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act” for short) insofar as they prescribe time li<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ypographical error, the CENVAT Credit admissible in ITC was shown as “Nil”. On account of this wrong declaration, the petitioners would not be able to migrate the left over CENVAT Credit as on 30.06.2018 to the GST regime. Counsel pointed out that the last date by extension for filing Form TRAN1 was 27.12.2017, before which date, the petitioners had attempted to make correction in the said Form. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Credit admissible as ITC. Later we have lodged a complaint to GST Helpline on 16th November 2017. Till date nothing has happened. Our “Service Request Number” is 201712191829221.” = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" PRIVI ORGANICS INDIA LIMITED Versus UNION OF INDIAGST2018 (10) TMI 1043 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT – TMIGUJARAT HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 17-10-2018R\/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16106 of 2018 GSTMR AKIL KURESHI AND MR B.N. KARIA, JJ. For The Petitioner (s) : Mr Dhaval Shah (2354) ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. The … Continue reading “PRIVI ORGANICS INDIA LIMITED Versus UNION OF INDIA”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14545","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14545","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=14545"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14545\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14545"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14545"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14545"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. A letter was written to the authorities on 25.11.2017 stating as under;
\n “Referring to our telecommunication on help desk at the time of filling TRANS 1 in the head of Amount of Tax Credit Carried Forward, We missed to enter the amount in Column Cenvat Credit admissible as ITC and as a result Cenvat Credit is not carried over. Moreover we do no<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n7. Counsel for the petitioners would contend that the TRAN1 declaration was filed within time and attempt was also made before the last date, i.e. 27.12.2017, to correct a pure typographical error. However, the system did not accept such correction. The petitioners would, thus, lose the entire CENVAT Credit balance of Rs. 1,06,08,998\/.
\n8. It would, prima facie, appear that the extended time for making declaration, which was extended upto 27.12.2017, would take within its fold, any typographical or such other corrections, which may be noted in the declaration al<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n