Case Details: Commissioner Commercial Tax Versus S/S Ravi Prakash Rahul Prakash (2025) 30 Centax 512 (All.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Piyush Agrawal, J.
- Shri Bipin Kumar Pandey for the Appellant.
- Shri Vishnu Kesarwani for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner was a registered dealer under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (UPVAT Act), engaged in the trading of food grains, rice, and related commodities. On the introduction of the GST regime on 01-07-2017, the petitioner held closing stock of goods that had been purchased under the UPVAT regime. Claiming entitlement to input tax credit (ITC) on the tax paid at the time of such purchases, the petitioner initially filed Form GST TRAN-1 under Section 140 of the Uttar Pradesh GST Act, 2017 to carry forward the ITC on the closing stock.
However, upon realising that such a claim might not be legally tenable, the petitioner subsequently filed Form GST TRAN-2 reversing the earlier ITC claim. The core legal issue was whether ITC under the UPVAT Act could be considered eligible for carry forward under Section 140 when the purchased goods had not been resold as of 01-07-2017. The petitioner contended that payment of tax at the time of purchase should suffice for recognition of ITC, irrespective of the resale status. The matter was brought before the High Court of Allahabad.
High Court Held
The Allahabad High Court held that under the UPVAT Act, ITC could be availed only when purchased goods were subsequently resold as taxable sales, as per the mandate of Section 13 of the UPVAT Act. The Court observed that since the petitioner had not resold the goods before the transition to GST, the condition for availing ITC remained unfulfilled. It further noted that the closing stock held by the petitioner was not exempt under the GST regime, and therefore, the ITC claimed could not be treated as eligible under Section 140 of the Uttar Pradesh GST Act, 2017. The Court concluded that mere payment of tax at the time of purchase under the UPVAT Act did not entitle the dealer to transitional credit in the absence of completed resale.
List of Cases Cited
- CIT v. R. Hanumathappa and son — (1971) 3 SCC 592 — Referred [Para 5]
- Commissioner, Commercial Tax v. S/S Janki Industries Nai — [Sales/ Trade Tax Revision No. 10 of 2025, dated 9-5-2025] — Referred [Para 3]
- Farooq Agencies v. CCT — [2013] 37 taxmann.com 473 (Allahabad) — Referred [Para 4]
- Sangeeta Singh v. Union of India — (2005) 7 SCC 484 — Referred [Para 5]
- State of Jharkhand v. Govind Singh — (2005) 10 SCC 437 — Referred [Para 5]
