14.07.2025 Sayandeep ML Sl. No. 23 Ct. No. 05 WPA 4057 of 2025 Debasish Chatterjee Vs. The Superintendent of CGST & CX, Range-V, Bally-II Division & ors. Mr. Arya Das Mr. Amit Kumar Shaw …. for the petitioner Mr. Kaushik Dey Mr. Kaustav Kr. Maity …..for the CGST authority Mr. P.K. Bhowmick Ms. Moumita Mondal …. for the respondent No. 4 1. Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be taken on record. 2. The petitioner is primarily aggrieved by the failure on the part of the concerned respondents to implement the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST and CX, Range-II, Bally Division, Howrah Commissionerate dated 24th February, 2023 under Section 143 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). 3. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the order impugned and would submit that although by the aforesaid order, the proper officer had allowed admissible amount of Rs. 23,31,308/- in terms of Section 140 of the said Act, however, the authorities while giving effect to such order have subtracted Rs. 1,98,870/- therefrom. He would submit that while 2 WPA 4057 of 2025 2 implementing aforesaid order the respondents cannot be permitted to deviate therefrom especially when the respondent authorities have not preferred an appeal from such order. This apart, it is submitted that although, in terms of the direction contained in the said order an amount of Rs. 19,0197.70/- was allowed as credit in SGST, the said amount has not been given credit till date. 4. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, I find that the operative portion of the order passed by the proper officer is based on the discussions which are available in the penultimate page of the order. To morefully appreciate the same, the relevant portion of the discussion is extracted herein below: “On discussion of the above mentioned facts it appears that the claim of cenvat credit Rs. 25,30,178/-(Rs.25,44,632.62/- Rs.14,454.64/-) as ITC of Central tax is in accordance with Section 140 of CGST Act' 2017 and VAT credit Rs. 8,68,159.70/- (Rs. 8,44,292.70/- + Rs. 23,867/-) as ITC of State tax is in accordance with Section 140 of SGST Act 2017 are admissible and allowable for filing of the this instant revised Tran-1 on 29.11.2017. From the examination of the ledger it is observed that (i) the transitional cenvat credit of amount Rs.1,98,870/- for the period November, 2017 has been credited on 26.12.2017 (reference no. AA1911173715227) in CGST ledger during filing of earlier Tran-1 on 26.12.2017. (ii) the transitional cenvat credit of amount Rs.8,49,140/- for the period November, 2017 has been credited on 26.12.2017 (reference no. AA1911173715227) in CGST ledger during filing of earlier Tran-1 on 26.12.2017. Hence further only (i) the taxRs. 23,31,308/- (Rs.25,30,178/- Rs. 1,98,870/-) is allowed to take credit in the CGST ledger and (ii) the VAT/ State tax Rs. 19,019.7/- (Rs. 8,68,159.7/- 3 WPA 4057 of 2025 3 Rs.8,49,140/-) is allowed to take credit in the SGST ledger.” 5. Having regard to the aforesaid is amply clear that the claim of cenvat credit of the petitioner was allowed to the extent of Rs. 25,30,178/- as ITC by deducting the disallowed amount of Rs. 14,454.65/- from the original claim of Rs. 25,44,632.62/-. Since, records reveals that transitional cenvat credit amount of Rs. 1,98,870/- for the period of November, 2017 had been credited on 26th December, 2017 in the CGST ledger during the filing of earlier Tran-1 on 26th December, 2017, the claim on account of cenvat credit was allowed to the extent of Rs. 23,31,308/- as ITC by subtracting 1,98,870 from 25,30,178/-. 6. It appears that while implementing the said order the authorities may have erroneously subtracted the sum of Rs. 1,98,870/- from the allowable cenvat credit as ITC of 23,31,308/-. Though, the entire records are not available and though Mr. Dey could not enlighten this Court as to whether the amount of Rs. 23,31,308/- had in fact being credited to the petitioner on account of cenvat credit as ITC, I am of the view if such amount has not already been credited to forthwith credit the same to the petitioner’s ledger. Insofar as SGST credit is concerned to the extent of Rs. 19,019.7/-, the same should also be credited to the petitioner’s ledger having regard to the directions contained in the order dated 24th February, 2023, if the same has already not been credited. However, the 4 WPA 4057 of 2025 4 respondents are directed to verify the petitioner’s ledger before effecting such credit. 7. Since nothing survives in the writ petition, the writ petition is disposed of. 8. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. All parties shall act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from this Court’s official website. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)