Case Details: Madura Micro Finance Ltd. vs. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai (2025) 37 Centax 401 (Tri.-Mad)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- M. Ajit Kumar, Member (T)
- Shri K. Manimaran, Chartered Accountant, for the Appellant.
- Smt. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram, Authorized Representative, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The appellant, a non-banking financial company, filed Form TRAN-1 within the prescribed time for the transition of credit under the GST regime. Pursuant to an audit conducted after the introduction of GST, the appellant paid service tax dues under reverse charge. The claim for transition of such credit was rejected on the ground that the service tax paid under reverse charge was not declared in the service tax returns filed earlier. The appellant submitted that the service tax returns had already been filed before the audit and therefore the amount could not be reflected therein, and further filed a revised TRAN-1 application claiming eligible credit. The department rejected the transition of credit as well as refund, citing non-declaration in returns and referring to provisions of Section 142(8) (a) of the CGST Act and Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The matter was placed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
CESTAT Held
The CESTAT held that the transition provisions under Section 140 and Section 142 of the CGST Act permitted carry forward and refund of credit where the form was filed within time. The Tribunal further held that there was no allegation of fraud or suppression, and rejection of the claim on the ground of non-declaration in service tax returns was hyper-technical. The Tribunal also held that Section 142(8)(b) mandated the grant of a cash refund where the amount became refundable pursuant to proceedings and such credit could not have been availed prior to the GST regime. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that transitional credit, being a vested right, could not be denied on procedural grounds. The appellant was therefore held entitled to a cash refund of the eligible credit.
List of Cases Cited
- Adfert Technologies (P) Ltd. v. Union of India — 2020 (32) G.S.T.L. 726 (P&H.) — Referred [Para 7]
- Asiatic Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — (2022) 1 Centax 124 (Tri.-Del) = 2022 (67) G.S.T.L. 473 (Tri.-Del) — Referred [Para 3.1]
- Global Analytics India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2020 (35) G.S.T.L. 297 (Tri. – Chennai) —Referred [Para 3.1]
- Polygenta Technologies Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2018 (2) TMI 804-CESTAT, Mumbai — Relied on [Para 4]
- UOI v. Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. — 2020 (34) G.S.T.L. J138 (S.C.) — Noted [Para 7]
