9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 1317 - HC - GSTVires of Rule 117 of CGST Rules - time limittaion - filing to form TRANS-1 - HELD THAT - In view of the clear finding that in the instant case, there is no dispute with regard to the attempt made by the petitioner to log into the system within the time limit concerned, it is ordered that the impugned Rejection Order as per Ext.P8 etc, will stand quashed - Consequently it is ordered that the competent Authority among official respondents 1 and 3 to 6 shall take steps to immediately permit the petitioner to revise their TRAN 1 Forms either electronically or manually without much delay, preferably within a period of 2 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment or within such time limit that may be appropriately fixed by the competent Authority among the above said respondents as they deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case or within any shorter time limit. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Petitioner's entitlement to carry forward input tax credit under Rule 117 of CGST Rules 2017. 2. Violation of Article 14 and 301 of the Constitution of India by the respondents. 3. Challenge to Section 140 of CGST Act 2017 and Rule 117 of CGST Rules 2017. 4. Request for correction of Tran-1 filing to avoid hardships and damages. Analysis: Issue 1: Petitioner's entitlement to carry forward input tax credit under Rule 117 of CGST Rules 2017: The petitioner, a registered dealer under the KVAT Act 2003, sought to carry forward input tax credit under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. Due to a system error, the petitioner erroneously filed Tran-1 with a claim of 'Zero' instead of ?9,15,198.29. The petitioner contended that the rejection of their request by the respondents was unjust and sought correction of the error. The court acknowledged the petitioner's attempt to log into the system and ordered the competent authority to permit the petitioner to revise their TRAN-1 Forms either electronically or manually within a specified time frame, in line with similar judgments by other High Courts. Issue 2: Violation of Article 14 and 301 of the Constitution of India by the respondents: The petitioner argued that the respondents' rejection of their request was a gross violation of Article 14 and 301 of the Constitution of India. The court, after considering similar cases and judgments, found that the petitioner's attempt to log into the system was genuine and ordered the quashing of the rejection order. The court directed the competent authority to facilitate the revision of TRAN-1 Forms, either electronically or manually, within a stipulated time frame to ensure justice and adherence to constitutional provisions. Issue 3: Challenge to Section 140 of CGST Act 2017 and Rule 117 of CGST Rules 2017: The petitioner challenged Section 140 of the CGST Act 2017 and Rule 117 of the CGST Rules 2017, citing inadequacy in the time limit specified for carrying forward CENVAT credit. The court, while acknowledging the petitioner's concerns, focused on the immediate need to correct the Tran-1 filing error to prevent further hardships. The judgment primarily addressed the procedural aspects of correcting the filing and did not delve deeply into the constitutional challenge raised by the petitioner. Issue 4: Request for correction of Tran-1 filing to avoid hardships and damages: The petitioner emphasized that without correcting the Tran-1 filing error, they would face significant hardships and damages. The court recognized the potential adverse effects on the petitioner and, therefore, directed the competent authority among the respondents to promptly permit the revision of TRAN-1 Forms, electronically or manually, within a specified period. The judgment aimed to alleviate the petitioner's concerns and ensure a fair opportunity for correction without undue delay. In conclusion, the court's judgment addressed the petitioner's grievances regarding the Tran-1 filing error, emphasizing the need for corrective action to uphold justice and prevent undue hardships. The ruling underscored the importance of facilitating the revision of forms within a reasonable time frame, in line with similar decisions by other High Courts, to protect the petitioner's rights and ensure compliance with legal provisions.
|
