Pragati Automotion Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Union Of India Through Its Revenue Secretary, Department Of Revenue,. Ministry Of Finance
(Karnataka High Court, Karnataka)

Case Law
Petitioner / Applicant
Pragati Automotion Pvt. Ltd.
The Union Of India Through Its Revenue Secretary, Department Of Revenue,. Ministry Of Finance
Karnataka High Court
Jan 31, 2019
Order No.
WRIT PETITION No.3159/2019 (T-RES)
TR Citation
2019 (1) TR 2383
Related HSN Chapter/s
Related HSN Code



Learned counsel Smt. M.R. Vanaja accepts notice for respondent No.1.  

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent Nos.4 and 7. Learned counsel Sri. K.M. Shivayogiswamy accepts notice for respondent Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6.

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioners to correct the bonafide error which has crept in while filing the GST Tran – 1 form because of which the petitioner is deprived of the transitional credit of an amount of ₹ 9,74,57,802/- in their electronic credit ledger.

2. It is the contention of the petitioner that after the GST regime has been implemented in India, the petitioner filed GST TRAN-I claiming credit of ₹ 9,74,57,802/- in Column – 5 of Table 5(a) of Form GST TRAN – 1 well within the time prescribed by the statute. Revised Form GST TRAN – 1 was filed by the petitioner on 27.12.2017 after including the details of goods sent to job worker and held in his stock on behalf of the principal manufacturer in terms of Section 141 of CGST Act credit pertaining to job work. However, credit claim was indicated only in Column – 5 of Table 5(a) but not in Column – 6. The electronic credit ledger reflected credit of ₹ 5,89,346/-. The petitioner made several complaints before the Nodal Officer, but the same has not been considered so far.

3. It is hardly required to be stated that the Nodal Officer appointed under the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) and State Goods & Services Tax (SGST) Acts is obligated to consider the complaint of the petitioner and take a decision in the matter. However, the same has not been done, it is imperative for this Court to direct respondent No.7 – Nodal Officer to consider the complaint/representation made by the petitioner at Annexures-H and K to the writ petition and take a decision in accordance with law in an expedite manner and is ordered accordingly.  

Writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above.

  • Home
  • /
  • caselaw
  • /
  • pragati automotion pvt ltd vs the union of india through its revenue secretary department of revenue ministry of finance karnataka high court

BUSY is a simple, yet powerful GST / VAT compliant Business Accounting Software that has everything you need to grow your business.

phone Sales & Support:

+91 82 82 82 82 82
+91 11 - 4096 4096