2018 Taxo.online 393

WP(C).No. 28824 of 2018 dated 10.09.2018

MALAYALAM MOTORS PVT LTD.

GST COUNCIL

2018

GST

Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017

Dama Seshadri Naidu, Justice

In favour of assessee

High Court

Kerala

Represented by: –

Petitioner: – Anil D. Nair

Respondent: – Sri.N.Nagaresh

Order: –

The petitioner claimed the credit transfer through Trans-III, but did not get the central excise credit. When it approached the assessing authority, it was informed that the claim should have been made in Tran-I. In that context, the petitioner submitted the Ext.P7 representation before the 4^th respondent. Now seeking its consideration, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

2. In response to the submissions made by the petitioner’s counsel, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1, 2 and 4 has submitted that the petitioner in the first place submitted a wrong form; that is Trans-III, instead of Trans-I. Therefore, it cannot blame the respondents for its not getting the central excise credit.
3. At any rate, the petitioner’s counsel in reply submits that because of the uncertainty in the new tax regime, the petitioner was given to believe that it was Trans-III. He has also maintained that the then the draft rules also indicates the same effect. In the end he has submitted that the 4^th respondent may consider the Ext.P7 and take an appropriate decision.
4. I, therefore, without adverting to the merits of the matter, dispose of the writ petition, holding that the 4^th respondent will consider the Ext.P7 and pass appropriate orders, at the earliest.