The Madras High Court presided by Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth has held that the last date for filing of TRAN-1 and revision of error cannot be the same and directs respondents to enable filing of revised TRAN 1.
The petitioner, M/s. Interplex Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., uploaded its TRAN-1 on 27.12.2017 claiming the transition of the CENVAT credit balance. However, two errors, one of erroneous reduction of CENVAT credit and omission of another component of CENVAT credit, were figured in the original TRAN-1 filed.
A representation was filed before the respondent explaining the errors and seeking permission for availing of the credit to which the petitioner is,admittedly, entitled but no response was received. Hence, filed a Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to credit the amount relating to the input tax credit (ITC) of Rs.16,21,227/- and Rs.4,24,136/- to the electronic credit ledger of the petitioner.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed the TRAN-1 on the last date for filing of TRAN-1 and revision of TRAN-1 being the same, leading to an absurdity in the practical application. The counsel for the petitioner by relying on the decision in Bharat Electronic Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of GST & C. Ex., submitted that the timelines for uploading TRAN 1 for seeking credit as well as seeking revision of the credit cannot be the same as this leads to an unworkable position and prayed to direct the respondent to enable filing of revised TRAN 1 by opening of the portal
The single bench by relying on the decision in Bharat Electronics Ltd. (supra)observed that the time limit for revision of a TRAN 1 return is identical to the timeline for filing of a return-seeking transition. The purpose of revision is to enable correction/modification of a return of transition. In such an event, it would stand to reason that some additional time, over and above the timeline granted for a TRAN-1 return be provided by the respondent.
The High Court has held that “the timelines under Rule 120A must be of a period over and above the timelines stipulated in Rule 117, mandamus, as sought for by the petitioner, is issued. Since the credits filed by the petitioner relating to Central Excise and Service both coming under Central jurisdiction, R1 may enable opening of the portal such that revision may be sought”.
Mr. G. Natarajan and Mr. Richardson Wilson appeared on behalf of the petitioner and respondent respectively.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
