2019 Taxo.online 71
writ petition no. 3159 of 2019 (T-RES)
PRAGATI AUTOMATION PRIVATE LIMITED
UNION OF INDIA
2019
GST
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 141 of CGST Act, 2017
CGST Rules, 2017
Rule 117
S. Sujatha, Justice
In favour of assessee
High Court
Karnataka
Represented By : –
Petitioner : – Sri Ravi Raghavan
Respondent : – Smt. M R Vanaja, Sri K M Shivayogiswamy and Sri T K Vedamurthy
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HOLDING THAT THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 117OFCGSTRULES,2017ANDRULE117OFKARNATAKAGST RULES,2017ISULTRAVIRESTOTHEPROVISIONOFSECTION 140OFTHECGSTACT,2017.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
Order –
Learned counsel Smt. M.R. Vanaja accepts notice for respondentNo.1.
Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent Nos.4and7.
Learned counsel Sri. K.M. Shivayogiswamy accepts notice for respondent Nos.2,3,5and6.
The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioners to correct the bonafide error which has crept in while filing the GST Tran–1 form because of which the petitioner is deprived of the transitional credit of an amount of Rs.9,74,57,802/- in the electronic credit ledger.
2. It is the contention of the petitioner that after the GST regime has been implemented in India, the petitioner filed GST TRAN-I claiming credit of Rs.9,74,57,802/- in Column – 5 of Table 5(a) of Form GST TRAN – 1 well within the time prescribed by the statute. Revised Form GST TRAN – 1 was filed by the petitioner on 27.12.2017 after including the details of goods sent to job worker and held in his stock on behalf of the principal manufacturer in terms of Section 141 of CGST Act credit pertaining to job work. However, credit claim was indicated only in Column – 5 of Table 5(a) but not in Column – 6. The electronic credit ledger reflected credit of Rs.5,89,346/-. The petitioner made several complaints before the Nodal Officer, but the same has not been considered so far.
3. It is hardly required to be stated that the Nodal Officer appointed under the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) and State Goods & Services Tax (SGST)Actsisobligatedtoconsiderthecomplaintofthe petitioner and take a decision in the matter. However, the same has not been done, it is imperative for this Court to direct respondent No.7 – Nodal Officer to consider the complaint/representation made by the petitioneratAnnexures-HandKtothewritpetitionand take a decision in accordance with law in an expedite manner and is ordered accordingly.
Writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above.
