YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has assailed the communication dated 22.03.2019 issued by the respondent No.6 at Annexure-A to the writ petition inter alia seeking a direction to the respondents to enable the petitioner to revise their Form GST TRAN-1 in order to transit the amount of Rs.4,31,32,066/- in the Electronic Credit Ledger in terms of the provisions of Section 140 and Section 140[5] of the Central Goods Service Tax Act, 2017 ['CGST Act' for short] read with Rule 117 / Rule120A of the CGST Rules 2017 ['Rules' for short].

(2.) The petitioner company is engaged in manufacturing, trading and selling of electrical and electronic products, engineering solutions, EPC Contracts and software solutions. It is contended that the petitioner was registered as a manufacturer under the Central Excise Act, 1944, as a service provider under the Finance Act, 1994 and also a dealer under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. On the GST regime coming into force from 01.07.2017 in India, the CGST Act and various State GST Acts made specific provisions allowing for the carry forward of credits due to taxpayers under the old regime into the GST regime. The specific transitional provisions were made allowing taxpayers to take credit in their electronic credit ledger under GST equal to the unutilized credits available to the taxpayer under the old regime on the transition day. The petitioner had duly filed the Form GST TRAN-1 on 12.12.2017 within the prescribed time limit as contemplated under Rule 117 read with the notifications issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs from time to time. The petitioner sought to carry forward the amount of Cenvat credit as contained in the returns filed in the earlier regime in terms of Section 140[1] of the CGST Act. However, it was noticed that no credit pertaining to the closing balance of the Cenvat Credit has been transferred to their Electronic Credit Ledger under the GST regime. On further follow up action made with the GSTN authorities, the petitioner was advised to suitably amend the Form GST TRAN-1. Accordingly, it is submitted that numerous attempts were made to revise the Form GST TRAN-1 but in vain. On correspondence made with the GST helpdesk and the respondent No.5 Commissioner of Central Tax, respondent No.6 has addressed to respondent No.5 that the issue remains unresolved and finally the request of the petitioner has been disapproved by the respondent No.6. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Shivadass representing the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the credit in dispute was validly earned by them under the old tax regime. There is no dispute about the eligibility of credit and its carry forward under the GST regime. The consequences of not being able to avail the rightful due credit is only due to technical glitches, system error. Section 140[1] of the CGST Act enables the petitioner to avail the credit in Electronic Credit Ledger of the credit earned in earlier tax regime. Rule 117 read with Rule 120A of the CGST Rules provides that the respondent No.5 is duty bound to allow for a one-time revision of the Form GST TRAN1 through the common portal or manually. In support of his contention, the petitioner placed reliance on the order of this Court in the case of M/s. Atria Convergnece Technologies Ltd., V/s. Union of India and Others, 2019 VIL 128 KAR.