Case Law Details
Union Of India Vs Merchem India Pvt. Ltd (Kerala High Court)
It is significant to note that the statute does not provide for any provision for lapsing of unutilized input tax credit for non filing of TRAN-1. The input tax credit is required by law to be credited to the electronic credit ledger of an assessee. Failure to credit the input tax credit is an infraction of section 140(1) and to Rule 117(3) of the GST Rules. Input tax credit is an asset in the hands of the dealer. A registered dealer had a statutory right under the VAT regime to get refund. Unutilized input tax credit of the erstwhile regime can be denied from being credited to the electronic credit ledger only under the contingencies mentioned in the proviso to section 140(1). On all other situations, this statutory right cannot be defeated by any procedural rules under the GST regime. In this context, we bear in mind the salutary principles enshrined in Article 265 and Article 300A of the Constitution of India also.
It is axiomatic that computer literacy has not reached its pinnacle in our country. Technical glitches at the transition stage to GST should not affect above said statutory right of dealers. Attempt must always be made not to deprive a dealer from a bonafide claim, through technicalities. In the wake of the transition period to GST and the switching over to the electronic portal, admittedly glitches had occurred. In such instances, the department should have, while assisting the assessees, acted with alacrity and promptness rather than deny bonafide claims.
The issue raised in this writ appeal being technical in nature, it is only in the interest of all that such technical issues do not stand in the way of rendering justice. Keeping in perspective the contentions in the case, we are of the view that the impugned judgment does not reflect any error of law warranting an interference by this Court in appeal. In fact, the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge being an innocuous one, we are constrained to observe that the respondents ought not to have pursued the same in appeal, wasting judicial time and energy.
Granting an opportunity of hearing is only to enable the process of decision-making simpler. It is one of the basic principles of natural justice. In the process of rendering justice, an opportunity of hearing is a basic postulate. The challenge now raised by the appellant against the opportunity of hearing directed to be afforded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment is therefore not tenable.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
