Page 74 - GSTL_27th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 4

400 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 39
ward the amount of Cenvat credit accumulated under the
erstwhile (service tax) regime prior to the GST regime subject
to fulfillment of certain conditions given in the proviso to
Section 140(1).
(f) Having filed the Service tax returns and crystallized the
amount of eligible Cenvat credit, the petitioner attempted to
file Form GST TRAN-1 in order to carry forward and transi-
tion its accumulated Cenvat credit into the GST regime. Since
the statutory time-limit to file Form GST TRAN-1 was fixed
as 27-12-2017 vide order dated 15-11-2017, the petitioner was
unable to file Form GST TRAN-1 on the GST portal. There-
fore, according to the petitioner, it was unjustly precluded
from filing Form GST TRAN-1 under the GST regime though
it fulfilled the conditions prescribed by the proviso to Section
140(1) read with Rule 117(1) of the CGST Act.
(g) Hence the present petition.
6. Mr. Bose, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submitted that it is settled law that there cannot be a time limit for transition of
eligible Cenvat credit into the GST regime as held by the Punjab and Haryana
High Court in the case of Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.,
CWP No. 30949 of 2018 (O & M) [2020 (32) G.S.T.L. 726 (P & H)]. He submitted
that the right to transaction of Cenvat credit into the GST regime is an indefeasi-
ble right which cannot be curtailed by providing a time limit in terms of Rule
117(1) of the CGST Rules. He submitted that the aforesaid position was thereafter
followed in several cases by the following High Courts :-
(i) Mrinal Ghost v. Union of India & Ors., W.P. No. 9821 (W) of 2018;
Krish Automotors Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C)
3736/2018 - Hon’ble Delhi High Court [2019 (29) G.S.T.L. 584
(Del.)];
(ii) M/s. Asian Paints Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P. No.
33290/2019-Hon’ble Karnataka High Court [2020 (34) G.S.T.L. 50
(Kar.)];
(iii) M/s. Kay Ess Surgico v. Union of India & Ors., CWP 37368/2019-
Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court;
(iv) Tara Exports v. Union of India & Ors., W.P. (MD) No. 18532 of 2018-
Hon’ble Madras High Court [2019 (20) G.S.T.L. 321 (Mad)];
(v) M/s. Jay Bee Industries v. Union of India & Ors., CWP No. 2169 of 2018
- Hon’ble Himachal Pradresh High Court [2020 (32) G.S.T.L. 719
(H.P.)];
(vi) Gallops Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India, R/Special Civil Applica-
tion No. 9237 of 2019 - Hon’ble Gujarat High Court.
7. He submitted that in view of the aforesaid settled legal position, the
petitioner approached the jurisdictional officer to request him to accept the man-
ual Form GST TRAN-1 prepared by the petitioner. However, the jurisdictional
officer refused to accept the petitioner’s application and directed the petitioner to
approach the jurisdictional Nodal Officer. Thereafter the petitioner filed applica-

GST LAW TIMES  27th August 2020  74