IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
3. OS WP 1075-21.doc
R.M. AMBERKAR
(Private Secretary)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O.O.C.J.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1075 OF 2021
Chep India Private Limited .. Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors.
.. Respondents
………………..
Mr. Vinay Shroff i/by Mr. Rajat Gupta for Petitioner
Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra a/w Mr. Dhananjay B. Deshmukh for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, 7, 9 to 11
Ms. Jyoti Chavan, AGP for Respondent No. 5, 6 and 8
……………….
CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM &
MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : JUNE 27, 2022
P.C.:
1.
The Petitioner has approached this Court praying for direction to
respondents to carry forward transitional credit of Rs. 84,53,085/-
credit of CENVAT by allowing petitioner to file declaration in form
GST TRAN 1, either electronically or manually or be permitted to take the credit through monthly return GSTR-3B.
2.
As it appears from copy of the letter signed on 13.03.2020 from
the office of the Assistant Commissioner of CGST, Division-III, Mumbai
West to Deputy Commissioner (GST), IT Grievance Redressal
Committee, Churchgate, Mumbai, petitioner had filed TRAN 1 through
Andhra Pradesh branch login instead of Maharashtra branch GST login
where petitioner was holding centralized service tax registration. This
has resulted into their CENVAT credit balance of eligible duties at the
1 of 3
3. OS WP 1075-21.doc
end of June 2017 not getting transferred in electronic credit ledger of
credit of either Maharashtra branch or Andhra Pradesh branch. In
fact, Assistant Commissioner had forwarded the representation to the
Deputy Commissioner (GST) of I.T. Grievance Redressal Committee
for further necessary action. Therefore, one thing is certain that
petitioner had filed TRAN 1. How to give credit to petitioner for CENVAT credit is the issue.
3.
If it is possible or feasible to open the portal so that the assessee
may be able to file its TRAN 1 return or revised return or re-revised
return in Maharashtra, an attempt should be made for that. If it is not
possible or feasible, the concerned Assistant Commissioner shall
communicate the same to petitioner within two weeks of uploading of
this order. In such a case, petitioner should be permitted to make
unutilized credit in its GST 3B Forms to be filed on the monthly basis.
We find that similar approach has been taken by the Hon’ble High
Court at Calcutta in Nodal Officer, Jt. Commissioner, IT Grievance,
GST Bhavan Vs. M/s. Das Auto Centre in its judgment pronounced on
14.12.2021. Similar view also has been taken by Panjab & Haryana
High Court in the case of Hans Raj Sons Vs. Union of India reported in 2020 (34) G.S.T.L. 58 (P & H).
Petition accordingly stands disposed with no order as to costs.
We hasten to add that we have not made any observations on the
2 of 3
3. OS WP 1075-21.doc
merits of the credit that is sought by the Petitioner.
6.
The statement of Mr. Shroff that petitioner has not availed of any
credit otherwise is accepted.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] [ K. R. SHRIRAM, J.]
RAVINDRA
MOHAN
AMBERKAR
Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
MOHAN
AMBERKAR
Date: 2022.06.29
10:13:39 +0530
3 of 3
