Transitional Credit Not Lost for Wrong TRAN‑1 Table Where Eligibility Undisputed: GSTAT Kolkata

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata dismissed a Revenue appeal and held that transitional credit entered in the wrong table of Form GST TRAN‑1 cannot be denied on that ground alone.

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Kolkata has held that transitional credit claimed in Table 5(a) of Form GST TRAN‑1 instead of Table 7(a) cannot be denied merely for the wrong entry, where the show cause notice never disputed eligibility under Section 140(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) [Atanu Mondal v. Stores and Spares Co, 2026-juristway.com-3378-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST].

The Bench of Satya Gopal Chattopadhyay, Member (Judicial), and Anindya Mitra, Member (Technical) heard the Revenue’s appeal under Section 112(3); Mr. Mitra wrote the order. The dealer had carried forward ₹36,35,704 of CGST credit on stock. Table 5(a) is meant for CENVAT credit carried forward under Section 140(1), while Table 7(a) covers credit on stock under Section 140(3). The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand under Section 73 because the dealer had not used the revision window in Circular No. 180/12/2022‑GST dated 9 Sep 2022. The First Appellate Authority allowed the dealer’s appeal.

The Revenue argued that the dealer had not proved its eligibility under Section 140(3), and that the First Appellate Authority should have made further inquiry under Section 107(11).

The Tribunal surveyed rulings of the Delhi, Calcutta and Punjab and Haryana High Courts treating entries in the wrong table of TRAN‑1 as inadvertent errors that cannot impair a substantive right. It rejected the adjudicating authority’s view that those rulings ceased to apply after the circular, since they rest on the principle that procedural lapses cannot defeat a right otherwise available.

Both the notice and the adjudication order were confined to the wrong table. Since the adjudicating authority omitted the ground of ineligibility, the Tribunal held it would be deemed to have been taken and rejected, and the Revenue could not raise it in appeal, applying principles analogous to constructive res judicata stated in Shankara Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. M. Prabhakar (2011).

On Section 107(11), the Tribunal held that the words “as may be necessary” confer a discretion to inquire when the facts demand it, not a duty to inquire in every appeal. It upheld the appellate order and rejected the Revenue’s appeal.

2026-juristway.com-3378-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST