Case Details: Debasish Chatterjee Versus Superintendent of CGST & CX (2025) 33 Centax 27 (Cal.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.
-
S/Shri Arya Das, Amit Kumar Shaw, Kaustav Kr. Maity and Kaushik Dey for the Petitioner.
-
Shri P.K. Bhowmick and Ms. Moumita Mondal for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The Petitioner, a registered person under GST, was aggrieved that while giving effect to the implementing order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 143 of CGST Act, transitional Cenvat credit allowed to be carried forward under Section 140 was not fully credited. The Petitioner submitted that although the Assistant Commissioner had allowed input tax credit as per the admissible claim, the proper officer erroneously subtracted a certain amount from the sanctioned credit while giving effect to the order. It was further submitted that credit allowed under SGST by the Assistant Commissioner had also not been reflected in the electronic ledger. The matter was accordingly placed before the Calcutta High Court.
High Court Held
The Calcutta High Court held that the proper officer had erroneously subtracted a sum from the allowable Cenvat credit sanctioned as ITC in the implementing order passed under Section 143. The Court directed that the input tax credit be allowed in full as per the order of the Assistant Commissioner, including the SGST credit that had not yet been reflected in the ledger.
