There is no merits in this Writ Petition for either transfer of refund of input tax Credit (CENVAT Credit) which was transitioned by the petitioner by filing Trans-1. Such credit has to be decided in the light of the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Central Excise Rules, 2002 only.
Rule 41 of the CGST Rules, 2017 –– Transfer of Input Tax Credit –– The petitioner prayed for a writ of mandamus to allow him to file Form GST ITC-02 to transfer the unutilized input tax credit from their Chennai registration to their Sri City, Andhra Pradesh or in the alternative to direct the respondent to refund the amount of ITC. The petitioner submitted that the respondents had orally indicated him that he should first close all the pending disputes and then apply for transfer of credit under Rule 10 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The petitioner filed Trans -1 and transferred its unutilized credit. The petitioner attempted to file Form GST ITC-02 in terms of Rule 41 to transfer the amount. The court observed that it is not clear as to why the petitioner not transferred the ITC under the provision in June 2016 when it shifted its factory to a new location in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner had not followed Rule 10 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The court did not find any merits in this writ Petition since such credit was to be decided in terms of erstwhile Central Excise Act, 1944 and Central Excise Rules, 2002.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the writ Petition with liberty to the petitioner to work out the remedy in accordance with law under the provisions of the Central Excise Act and the Rules made therein and thereafter approach the authorities under the GST enactments for refund.