If the petitioner is liable to establish that the amount of Rs. 5,34,633/- was the transitional credit in TRANS-1 it cannot be denied by the respondent. On the other hand if the petitioner is liable to pay any tax, it requires a detailed consideration by the respondents.
Section 140 of the CGST Act, 2017 –– Transitional Credit –––The petitioner submitted that after introduction of GST, a sum of Rs. 5,34,633/- was lying as un-utilized ITC in their VAT Account. The respondent issued a notice dated 20.11.2020 calling upon the petitioner to furnish certain documents. This notice remained un-served in the petitioner as the petitioner was unable to do business. The petitioner became aware of the impugned order only his bank account was attached. The court observed that there is no clarity on what basis an amount of Rs. 10,32,218/- has been determined in the impugned order. If the petitioner is liable to establish that the amount of Rs. 5,34,633/- was the transitional credit, it cannot be denied by the respondent and if the petitioner is liable to pay any tax, it requires a detailed consideration by the respondents.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court quashed the impugned orders and remitted the case back to the respondent to pass a speaking order within the period of 45 days.
If the petitioner is liable to establish that the amount of Rs. 5,34,633/- was the transitional credit in TRANS-1 it cannot be denied by the respondent. On the other hand if the petitioner is liable to pay any tax, it requires a detailed consideration by the respondents.
Section 140 of the CGST Act, 2017 –– Transitional Credit –––The petitioner submitted that after introduction of GST, a sum of Rs. 5,34,633/- was lying as un-utilized ITC in their VAT Account. The respondent issued a notice dated 20.11.2020 calling upon the petitioner to furnish certain documents. This notice remained un-served in the petitioner as the petitioner was unable to do business. The petitioner became aware of the impugned order only his bank account was attached. The court observed that there is no clarity on what basis an amount of Rs. 10,32,218/- has been determined in the impugned order. If the petitioner is liable to establish that the amount of Rs. 5,34,633/- was the transitional credit, it cannot be denied by the respondent and if the petitioner is liable to pay any tax, it requires a detailed consideration by the respondents.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court quashed the impugned orders and remitted the case back to the respondent to pass a speaking order within the period of 45 days.