9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 876 - HC - GSTCorrection of errors in the TRAN-1 declarations - migration to GST Regime - transitional provisions - Three transactions which were in pipeline when the GST was brought into force, due to oversight, were not included in such declaration. - Held that - There is no scope for directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to correct the TRAN1 declaration already made. We may recall, such time limit initially provided in the rules was extended from time to time and lastly upto 27.12.2017. Further, limited extension has been granted to cover cases where genuine hardships were felt in uploading said declarations due to technical glitches. The case of Bombay High Court in case of O/E/N India Ltd. & Anr. 2018 (10) TMI 199 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT was very different. The petitioner had pointed out a typographical error in filling up figure of unused CENVAT credit available, the Court was of the opinion that said mere typographical error should not be the governing factor for deciding substantive rights. The Court primafacie felt that section 172 of the Act which enables the Government to take necessary decision to avoid hardships could be utilized. The present situation is entirely different. Petition dismissed.
Issues involved:
1. Challenge to the validity of Rule 117 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and Form GST Tran1 under various constitutional provisions. 2. Challenge to the constitutionality of Section 164 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on grounds of excessive delegation. 3. Petition seeking rectification of GST-Tran1 for credit of carry forward of duties of goods and services. Detailed Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged Rule 117 of the CGST Rules and Form GST Tran1, alleging them to be ultra vires to Section 140(5) and Section 164 of the CGST Act, and violative of constitutional provisions. However, in light of a previous judgment by the Division Bench in a similar case, the petitioner withdrew challenges (a) and (b) but pressed for relief under challenge (c) for rectification of GST-Tran1. 2. The petitioner, a registered company under the CGST and GGST Acts, sought rectification of errors in the TRAN1 declaration due to three transactions overlooked during the transition to the GST regime. The petitioner argued for correction based on provisions allowing corrections in returns until the due date, citing potential financial losses and referring to relevant Supreme Court decisions. 3. The Court previously upheld the time limit provisions under Rule 117 in a similar case, rejecting challenges to the authority of the legislature to prescribe time limits and interpreting the provisions as mandatory. The Court emphasized the importance of finality in claims, credits, and transfers during the transition to the new tax structure, considering the impact on tax collection, estimates, and budgetary allocations. 4. The Court highlighted that the time limit provisions were crucial for the effective implementation of the new tax structure and to avoid endless disputes and litigations. It noted that allowing unlimited time for declarations could lead to chaos and impact revenue collection estimates. The Court distinguished the present case from a Bombay High Court judgment involving a typographical error, emphasizing the different circumstances. 5. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petition, finding no scope to allow the petitioner to correct the TRAN1 declaration, as the time limit had been extended multiple times, and limited extensions were granted for genuine hardships due to technical glitches. The Court concluded that the situation did not warrant rectification based on the precedents and the unique circumstances of the case.
|
