Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

iv)Under Section 142 (3) of the CGST Act, there is no requirement of disclosure of the CENVAT Credit in the ER-1 returns like Section 140 (5) and unlike Section 140 (1) of the said Act. Section 142 (3) of the CGST Act is a residuary provision which deals with refund of CENVAT Credit in accordance with existing law (Central Excise Act, 1944) in cash for cases not falling in specific transitional provision under Section 140 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act.

v) For the month of June, 2017 monthly return ER-1 under Central Excise Act was to be filed as per Rule 12 (1) of Central Excise Rules and the credit claimed in ER-1 (June, 2017) was to be claimed under the new GST regime by filing a declaration in Form GST - TRAN - 1. ER-1 return is required to be filed by 10 th of the following month i.e., 10th July, 2017 for the month of June, 2017 and which can be revised by end of the calendar month i.e. by 31 st July, 2017 as per Clause (a) of sub-Rule (8) of the said Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules.

vi)Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (formerly Central Board of Excise & Customs) vide Circular No.207/5/2017-ST dated 28.09.2017 has clarified that assessee can file declaration in GST TRAN - 1 under Section 140 (1) / Rule 117 upto 31.10.2017 and the same can be revised. The said last date for filing GST TRAN - 1 was further extended till 27.12.2019 in case where the claim of input service credit is already disclosed in the ER-1 return for June, 2017 unlike the case of the petitioner.

l) "Glaxo Smith Kline PLC and others Vs. Controller of Patents and Designs and Others" reported in (2008) 17 SCC 416 to submit that pre-existing right prior to coming into force of the new law continues to be governed by the old law and their rights under the old statute are not destroyed.

6. Submission of the Respondents: -

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and has submitted that the impugned orders passed by the authorities are well reasoned orders. There is neither any illegality nor any perversity calling for interference in those orders in writ jurisdiction. He submits that the authorities have rightly rejected the claim of refund as the petitioner was not entitled to refund under the existing law and did not claim CENVAT Credit in time as per the provisions of existing law and therefore could not claim credit through TRAN - 1 under Section 140 of CGST Act dealing with transitional arrangement for input tax credit. He submits that filing of refund application was itself mis-conceived and without any merits and Section 142 (3) of the CGST Act has no applicability under the facts and circumstances of this case. He submits that mode and manner to avail CENVAT Credit in connection with the impugned input service was available under Section 140 of CGST Act by claiming it firstly through ER-1 monthly return and then claiming it through TRAN- 1, but the petitioner did not avail of its rights in time. He submits that the matter of refund is strictly governed by the provision of law and the petitioner has not acted as per the law. He submits that neither Section 142 (3) nor Section 140 (5) of the CGST Act, has any applicability under the facts and circumstances of this case.

- 1 under Section 140 of CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 117 of CGST Rules. He submits that the petitioner was entitled to CENVAT Credit had he claimed the same in time by reflecting it in monthly return ER-1 and then through TRAN - 1 and there is no other mechanism to claim input tax credit other than TRAN- 1. It is further submitted that the petitioner had illegally taken credit of the impugned amount of service tax in ST-3 return though the petitioner was not an output service provider and was registered under Service Tax only for the purposes of discharging its liability under reverse charge mechanism. The petitioner failed to declare the CENVAT Credit arising out of input service tax in the last return ER-1 filed for the month of June, 2017 and did not claim the credit through TRAN-1 return even till the extended date. The petitioner was entitled to avail the input credit only through TRAN-1 under transitional arrangement for credit which was required to be done within the prescribed time.