Case Law Details
Madhav Motors Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)
The current petition is filed to seek the permission to upload the returns for the past period to avail eligible Input Tax Credit (ITC).
High Court states that, when the provisional registration granted to the petitioner was not cancelled through the procedure contemplated under the Act and Rules, and the respondents had granted a regular registration on 04.01.2020, the permanent registration must relate back to the date of the provisional registration and the petitioner ought to be entitled to upload the returns for the past period and to avail eligible input tax credit based on the returns uploaded by him. This is more so because it is admittedly the case that there was no formal order canceling the provisional registration, that was communicated to the petitioner in terms of the Act and Rules. Accordingly, HC quash communication, and direct the respondents to amend the Registration Certificate issued to the petitioner so as to make it valid from 01.07.2017, and permit the petitioner to upload the returns for the past period to avail eligible Input Tax Credit (ITC).
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
The petitioner is a dealer in automobiles and was registered as such under the erstwhile Kerala Value Added Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the KVAT Act). With the introduction of the GST Act with effect from 01.07.2017, he had applied for a registration under the said Act and by Ext.P1 certificate dated 28.06.2017, he was granted a provisional registration in terms of Section 139 (1) of the said Act. It is the case of the petitioner that, thereafter, with a view to getting a permanent registration, he had attempted to upload the Form TRAN-1 for conversion of the provisional registration to a permanent registration as also for claiming input tax credit in respect of the tax paid on closing stock that was available with him at the time of the transition into the GST regime. He submits that despite a number of attempts made for the purpose, he was not able to login to the system and upload the TRAN-1 Form. While matters stood thus, in November 2019, the petitioner attempted to generate e-way bills through the web portal of the respondents but, once again, could not do so since he had not received the permanent registration that he had applied for by then. It is significant to note that, while the permanent registration was not granted, the provisional registration initially granted had also not been cancelled by the respondents through the procedure contemplated under the Act. Under the said circumstances, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 representation before the respondents, which again did not yield any response. In the meanwhile, by Ext.P3 certificate dated 04.01.2020, the petitioner was granted a fresh registration under the GST Act. Ext.P3 indicates that the date of liability of the petitioner is recognised by the respondents as 01.07.2017, the date of introduction of the GST Act. However, while describing the validity period of Ext.P3 registration certificate, the respondents indicated that it would be valid only from 04.01.2020. Noticing the said discrepancy in the registration certificate, the petitioner preferred a request before the respondents for change in the effective date of the registration certificate from 04.01.2020 to 01.07.2017. The said request of the petitioner was rejected by Ext.P4 communication dated 11.01.2020. Impugning the said rejection, the petitioner is before this Court through the present Writ petition.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
