2018 Taxo.online 349
W.P.(C) 8691/2018, CM APPL. 38569/2018 DATED 19.09.2018
INDUSIND MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS LTD. & ANOTHER
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
2018
GST
Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017
Hon’ble Mr. S. Ravindra Bhat, Justice and Hon’ble A.K. Chawla, Justice
In favour of assessee
High Court
Delhi
Represented by: –
Petitioner: – Mr. Monish Panda, Mr. Amit Kr. Bhattacharyya & Mr. Mrinal Bharat Ram, Advs. versus
Respondent: – Mr. Nikhil Goel, Mr. Gurpreet Hora, Advocates for UOI, Mr. Abhishek Ghai, Advocate for Mr. Sanjeev Narula, SSC for Revenue, Mr. Gautam Narayan, ASC for GNCTD with Mr. Abhinav Goyal, Advocate.
Order: –
The petitioner’s grievance is that its transitional credit, to which it claims entitlement on account of approved Scheme of Arrangement made in August, 2017, is not duly reflected in its Electronic Credit Ledger Account. It is submitted that this omission places it in a perilous situation since it cannot claim the credit but rather has to pay the entire amount of output tax liability, when it submits its GSTR-3B, which is due to be submitted. It is stated that the transitional credit (input tax credit) otherwise available to it is set to lapse in September, 2018.
The counsel for the GST Commissioner appearing on advance notice submits that the meeting of the IT Grievance Redressal Committee (ITGRC) on 21.08.2018 has sought to redress this problem. Learned counsel has relied upon the minutes of the meeting which records the issue as follows:
3.2 EVP, GSTN further elaborated the cases under the Category B, where no technical issues were found on the basis of logs in GST system, as below:
(d) In 2 cases sent by Nodal Officers, taxpayer had attempted downward revision of distributed credit in Table 8 of TRAN-1. The system was designed to allow only upward revision and not to allow downward revision of the distributed credit in table 8 of TRAN-1. The system was designed in this way as any downward revision would mean that the credit that was distributed to the recipients would have to be modified in their ledgers also. Due to the complexity of design and revision being a new requirement, and shortage of time, the system was designed to handle the revision and modification of the amount only in the ledgers of the taxpayers who had filed the TRAN-1 and not of their recipients.
3.6 Decision: After detailed discussion considering the above facts, the IT-GRC decided to allow filing of TRAN-1 in total 213 cases of above Table-1 on account of technical/system issues as explained at para 3.1 above and details as per Annexures indicated in column No.4 and 6 of Table-1 respectively, subject to Law Committee recommendations regarding consequential benefits related to filing of TRAN-1/TRAN-2 and suggest ways to handle such situations, in a time bound manner as referred to it in 1st IT-GRC Meeting.
Simultaneously, the IT-GRC decided not to allow remaining 127 cases mentioned at Table-2 in absence of evidence of technical/system errors in these cases as explained at para 3.2 above and details as per Annexures indicated in column No.4 and 6 of Table-2 respectively.
It is pointed out that the present petitioner is one of the 213 entities which were allowed the facility and benefit of transitional credit. Learned counsel has drawn our attention at Serial No.12 in Annexure 1(A) to the said minutes, which reflects petitioner’s claim. It is urged that the petitioner should first ensure that the credits which it otherwise is entitled to – both transitional and input credit as on 01.07.2017, are duly claimed and reflected in the place of its registration i.e., Mumbai in order to ensure that thereafter, the other centers where it is registered, can claim it.
It is also submitted that the petitioner has approached the Bombay High Court for similar relief.
List on 16.10.2018.
