^®
TaxReply India Private Limited

GST Library

Best GST Library

Subscription Plans

TaxGPT

GST News | Updates

GST Calendar

GST Case Laws

GST Case Laws Sitemap

GST Notifications, Circulars, Releases etc.

Act & Rules

Act & Rules (Multi-view)

GST Rates

HSN Codes ^New

GST Forms

GST Diary

GST Notebook

GST Fees Manager

GST Council Meetings

GST Set-off Calculator

ITC Reversal Calculator

E-invoice Calculator

Inverted Duty Calculator

GSTR-3B Manual

GSTR-9 Manual

GSTR-9C Manual

Full Site Search

E-way Bill

Finance Bill

GST e-books

TaxReply Support

YouTube Videos

Twitter

Buy Premium Tax Domains

About Us

Our Services

🔒

TaxReply India Pvt Ltd

🔒

^®

Subscribe Free GST updates on...

Subscribe to Best GST Library of India and get ahead of the rest. Click here for plans. | GST Act & Rules e-book Click here. |

ANAND DISTRIBUTORS vs. THE UNION OF INDIA
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

G.R.SWAMINATHAN

Pet. Counsel

S.m.mohan Gandhi

Res. Counsel

V.malaiyendiran

S.ragaventhre

Petitioner / Applicant	ANAND DISTRIBUTORS
Respondent	THE UNION OF INDIA
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Mar 2, 2021
Order No.	W.P.(MD)No.25528 of 2019 And W.M.P.(MD)No.22081 of 2019
Citation	2021(3) TAXREPLY 4056
Add to Favorites	Add to favorites.
Download Original Order
Print (Full Page)
Print (Judgement Only)

Related Tags :

☍

Rule 117

TaxGPT ^Beta

Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

AA |

ORDER
Heard the learned counsel on either side. 2.The petitioner had registered himself as a dealer under TNVAT Act, 2006. Following the implementation of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the petitioner migrated into GST regime and got registered under the new Act. 3.The case of the petitioner is that when CGST Act came into force on 01.07.2017, he was entitled to a credit of ₹ 5,03,202/-. The petitioner would state that though he made several attempts to file form GST TRAN-1, he could not do so due to technical glitches. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation in this regard to the sixth respondent. The petitioner's request was rejected by the impugned order dated 28.08.2019. The sixth respondent had stated that in the impugned communication, there is no evidence to show that there was a system error in the log. Questioning the same, this writ petition has been filed. 4.The learned Standing Counsel would reiterate the stand set out in the impug....