Writ petition has been preferred for the following relief (s).

(a) holding and declaring that the petitioner has a right to utilize its credit balance of ₹ 1 Crore in the Personal Ledger Account under the existing laws of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for payment of its obligation and liabilities under the enacting laws of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 which repealed the Central Excise Act, 1944;

(b) holding and declaring that the words ‘cenvat credit so mentioned under Section 140 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and “Tax Credit” in the Trans-I form covers the credits available in PLA account for necessary credit under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017;

(c) quashing/setting aside the letter dated 12/14.12.2018 (Annexure-3) issued under the signature of the Assistant Commissioner, Central GST & Central Excise, Audit Circle, Ranchi;

(d) commanding upon the respondents and each one of them to issue a clarification/circular or notice to the officers working in the various zones for mitigating the grievances so that the petitioner and the other persons similarly situated are being allowed to use its credit lying in the PLA account in accordance with law.

2. Respondents have filed a counter affidavit and contested the claim on the legal grounds that transitional provisions under Chapter-XX of CGST Act, 2017 i.e. Section 140 does not allow carry forward of the amount deposited in the PLA. What can be carried forward is the Cenvat Credit lying in favour of the petitioner to the Electronic Credit Ledger.

3. Learned counsel for the Respondents while referring to para-14 of the counter affidavit, submits that the writ petitioner could have filed a refund application which could be considered in accordance with law. However, transitional provisions under the Act does not allow carry forward of Cenvat Credit to the Electronic Credit Ledger.

4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner, after some argument, seeks permission to pursue the matter before the competent authority by making an appropriate application for refund.

5. We have taken note of the submission of learned counsel for the parties and the stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit. Without commenting anything on merits of the claim of the petitioner, since the petitioner is willing to pursue his application for refund before the competent authority, writ petition is disposed of. Needless to say, if any such application is made, the same may be considered in accordance with law.