Merely because the petitioner was a going concern by itself did not mean that the petitioner was not entitled to such refund of the excess of Input Tax Credit which the petitioner accumulated over a period of time.
Section 140 of CGST Act, 2017 — Transitional Credit – The petitioner, a dealer of Motor Vehicles had claimed a refund of excess ITC in terms of TNVAT Act, 2006 read with Rule 10(10)(a) & (b) and Rule 11 of the TNVAT Rules, 2007. The petitioner filed a refund claim on 09.11.2011 for refund of accumulated ITC for the Assessment Years from 2006-2007 to 2009-2010. The petitioner filed writ Petition before this Court in 2013, to consider its representation for refund of the accumulated credit, which was disposed by an order directing the respondent to consider the representations of the petitioner. The respondent vide order dated 12-9-2013 rejected the refund of the ITC. Pending disposal of the present Writ Petition, the TNVAT was replaced with GST. The petitioner has transited the credit by filing Form GST TRAN-1. The court observed that as per the Rules prescribed, excess of Input Tax Credit has to be refunded back to the dealer. Further, denial of benefit of the notification to the appellant was unfair.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the writ by quashing the order with consequential direction to refund the amount lying unutilised after adjustment at the beginning of each financial year.
Merely because the petitioner was a going concern by itself did not mean that the petitioner was not entitled to such refund of the excess of Input Tax Credit which the petitioner accumulated over a period of time.
Section 140 of CGST Act, 2017 — Transitional Credit – The petitioner, a dealer of Motor Vehicles had claimed a refund of excess ITC in terms of TNVAT Act, 2006 read with Rule 10(10)(a) & (b) and Rule 11 of the TNVAT Rules, 2007. The petitioner filed a refund claim on 09.11.2011 for refund of accumulated ITC for the Assessment Years from 2006-2007 to 2009-2010. The petitioner filed writ Petition before this Court in 2013, to consider its representation for refund of the accumulated credit, which was disposed by an order directing the respondent to consider the representations of the petitioner. The respondent vide order dated 12-9-2013 rejected the refund of the ITC. Pending disposal of the present Writ Petition, the TNVAT was replaced with GST. The petitioner has transited the credit by filing Form GST TRAN-1. The court observed that as per the Rules prescribed, excess of Input Tax Credit has to be refunded back to the dealer. Further, denial of benefit of the notification to the appellant was unfair.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the writ by quashing the order with consequential direction to refund the amount lying unutilised after adjustment at the beginning of each financial year.