2019 (5) TMI 170 - HC - GST

Revision of Form GST TRAN-1 - transitional credit - transition to GST regime - HELD THAT - Rule 117 of the Rules provides for submitting a declaration electronically in FORM GST TRAN-1 within 90 days from the appointed day on the common portal specified therein, separately, the amount of input tax credit to which the registered person is entitled to take input tax credit under Section 140. The Commissioner is empowered to extend the period of 90 days by a further period not exceeding 90 days for submitting the declaration electronically in FORM GST TRAN-1 in terms of Rule 117 1A . This Court in M/S. ATRIA CONVERGENCE TECHNOLOGIES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE JOINT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, AND OTHER 2019 (4) TMI 301 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT has held that the petitioner therein is entitled to revise or rectify the errors in Form GST TRAN-1 in terms of Rule 120A wherein the Commissioner is empowered to extend the time period specified in Rule 117 as the petitioner is intending to revise the FORM GST TRAN-1 for the first time, the same squarely comes under Rule 120A. Hence, the respondent authorities ought to have considered the request/representation of the petitioner to permit or allow it to revise the declaration in FORM GST TRAN-1 - the matter is restored to the file of the respondent No.6 to re-consider the grievance of the petitioner in the light of the observations made herein above - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to communication seeking revision of Form GST TRAN-1 for credit transfer under GST regime.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged a communication seeking revision of Form GST TRAN-1 to transfer an amount to the Electronic Credit Ledger under the GST regime. The petitioner, engaged in various business activities, filed the Form GST TRAN-1 within the prescribed time limit but faced issues with transferring the Cenvat credit to the Electronic Credit Ledger. Despite attempts to revise the form, the request was disapproved. The petitioner contended that the credit was validly earned under the old tax regime and the inability to transfer it was due to technical glitches.

The petitioner relied on Section 140 of the CGST Act, which allows for the carry forward of credits under the GST regime. Rule 117 and Rule 120A of the CGST Rules mandate the allowance for a one-time revision of Form GST TRAN-1. The petitioner cited a previous court order supporting their contention. The respondents attempted to justify the communication, leading to a detailed analysis by the court.

The court examined Section 140, Rule 117, and Rule 120A, emphasizing the provisions for submitting declarations electronically and the power of the Commissioner to extend deadlines. The court highlighted the purpose of Rule 120A for revising declarations and the limitations on the number of revisions allowed. Additionally, the court referenced circulars addressing IT grievance redressal mechanisms and the removal of difficulties under Section 172 of the Act.

Referring to previous judgments, the court emphasized the need to address technical glitches and allow for revisions to achieve the objectives of the transitional arrangements under Section 140. The court directed the respondent to reconsider the petitioner's grievance, emphasizing the importance of achieving the intended purpose of the transitional provisions. The court set aside the impugned order and instructed expedited compliance within four weeks.

In conclusion, the court's detailed analysis of the legal provisions, previous judgments, and the need for pragmatic solutions underscored the importance of addressing technical issues in transitioning to the GST regime and ensuring the rightful transfer of credits. The judgment focused on upholding the principles of law while emphasizing the need for a practical approach to resolve the petitioner's grievance effectively.