2023 (5) TMI 1303 - HC - GST

Submission of revised Tran-1/Tran-2 offline on 30.11.2022 on the last date - Argument is that having received the returns on the last date in offline form the department is not justified in refusing to entertain them on the incorrect pretext that such returns were filed on 01.12.2022 - HELD THAT - Procedures have been provided to subserve the larger interest of the policy and the substantive rights of the persons, who are to be regulated by such procedures. The State having provided for a time frame to avail the facility cannot be permitted to deny the benefit of scheme only because the application was not made online, when it is not disputed that the online system itself was not functional on that day. The dealer has accordingly exercised its right in terms of the policy and has submitted offline application within the time permitted by the State under the policy. The authorities of State must make necessary amendments in the procedures so as to deal with exigency of the present kind and the rights exercised by the dealer to avail the ICT benefit cannot be denied for the reasons set forth above. Writ petition, accordingly, succeeds and is allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this judgment include the challenge to an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax (GST), regarding the submission of revised Tran-1/Tran-2 forms offline due to the non-functionality of the online system. The main contention is the refusal by the department to entertain the offline forms submitted on the last specified date.

Judgment details:
The judgment addresses the challenge to the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax (GST), which was primarily based on the petitioner's submission of revised Tran-1/Tran-2 forms offline due to the online system's non-functionality. The petitioner argued that the forms were submitted on the last date specified, and the department's refusal to entertain them on the grounds of being filed on a later date was incorrect.

The State authorities contended that the petitioner was required to upload the forms online, and since this was not done, the offline submission could not be entertained. However, it was acknowledged that the online system was indeed non-functional on the specified date, as asserted by the petitioner.

The court observed that procedures should not override substantive rights, especially when the State has provided a time frame for availing benefits. In this case, the petitioner submitted the offline forms on the last date specified, as the online system was not operational. The court emphasized that the dealer had acted within the policy guidelines and should not be denied benefits due to technical glitches beyond their control.

Consequently, the court held that the State authorities must make necessary amendments to accommodate situations where online systems fail, ensuring that dealers' rights under the policy are not compromised. The writ petition was allowed, directing the respondents to entertain the petitioner's offline application submitted within the stipulated time and process the claim accordingly. The petitioner agreed to provide necessary cooperation as required.