^®
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. |

PEE YEL JAY INTERNATIONAL AND OTHER vs. GOODS AND SERVICE TAX COUNCIL AND OTHER
(Madras High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

G.R.SWAMINATHAN

Pet. Counsel

S. Karunakar

Res. Counsel

K. Prabhu

Petitioner / Applicant	PEE YEL JAY INTERNATIONAL AND OTHER
Respondent	GOODS AND SERVICE TAX COUNCIL AND OTHER
Court	Madras High Court
State	Tamilnadu
Date	Mar 5, 2021
Order No.	W.P.(MD)Nos.853, 854, 856 & 861 of 2021
Citation	2021(3) TAXREPLY 4265
Add to Favorites	Add to favorites.
Download Original Order
Print (Full Page)
Print (Judgement Only)

TaxGPT ^Beta

Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

AA |

ORDER
Heard the learned counsel on either side. 2. The petitioners were the registered dealers under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 under the State Government. Following the implementation of GST Regime on 01.07.2017, the petitioners had to make the necessary migration. It is seen from the materials enclosed in the typed set of papers that they had filed the requisite Form TRAN 1 declarations. Unfortunately, ITC available to them was not reflected in the Electronic Credit Ledger. Therefore, the petitioners have been submitting representation after representation. Unfortunately, the respondents had taken the stand that the petitioners did not even file Form TRAN 1. This response appears to be a stereotyped one and it is running counter to the material enclosed in the record. The petitioners have enclosed the screen shot to show that they had filed the TRAN 1. Their only grievance is that in the Electronic Credit Ledger, ITC has not been carried forward. In any event, well bef....