9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 464 - HC - GSTExtension of time limit for filing of TRAN-I statutory form - carry forward of unutilized Credit of duty - time limit prescribed under Rule 117 read with Section 14C of CGST Act, 2017 - circular dated 03.04.2018 - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that Rule 117 (IA) permits the registered persons who could not submit the declaration within the due date on account of technical glitches on the common portal, by a further period not beyond 31.03.2019, Though under Rule 117 of the CGST Rules, 2017, period of 90 days from appointed day i.e.01.07.2017 was prescribed, the same has been extended from time to time now upto 31.12.2019 by virtue of the amendment to Sub-Rule IA of Rule 117 vide Notification No.49/2019/Central Tax dated 09.10.2019 - Thus, it is clear that if any technical glitches are found on the common portal of department, the registered persons are permitted to submit the declaration in TRAN-I up to 31.12.2019 whereas the said extension of time prescribed originally under Rule 117 is not extended, if any technical glitch arises on the error committed by the registered persons. In the light of Section 140 of the Act read with Section 142 and 172 as well as Rule 117 (1A), it is clear that though there is no explicit provision to permit revision filing of TRAN-I at an extended period for the registered persons who fail to furnish the material for having filed the same by 27.12.2017, in the absence of any specific time prescribed under Section 140 of the Act and in terms of introduction of Rules 117(1A) and 120A, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revenue could not be countenanced. Reliance can be placed in the case of ADFERT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2019 (11) TMI 282 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT where it was held that The Respondents are directed to permit the Petitioners to file or revise where already filed incorrect TRAN-1 either electronically or manually statutory Form(s) TRAN-1 on or before 30th November 2019. The request of the petitioners to extend the time prescribed under Rule 117 cannot be denied - writ petitions are allowed directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to file/ revise the TRAN-1 either electronically or manually on or before 31.12.2019 - decided in favor of petitioner.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioners can file or revise TRAN-I forms beyond the statutory period prescribed under Rule 117 of the CGST Rules, 2017. 2. Whether the technical glitches on the common portal justify the extension of the deadline. 3. Whether the denial of the right to carry forward unutilized credit violates constitutional rights. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Filing or Revising TRAN-I Beyond Statutory Period: The petitioners, registered dealers under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, sought permission to file or revise TRAN-I forms either electronically or manually beyond the prescribed time limit under Rule 117. The petitioners argued that various High Courts, including Delhi, Punjab & Haryana, and Kerala, had directed authorities to allow the filing or revision of TRAN-I forms beyond the statutory period, considering the technical difficulties faced by registered dealers. The respondents contended that the circular dated 03.04.2018 had set up an Input Tax Grievance Redressal Mechanism with appointed nodal officers to address these issues. Rule 117(1A) allowed the Commissioner to extend the deadline due to technical difficulties, but no reliance could be placed on this rule to permit filing beyond the statutory period without causing violence to the language of the statute. 2. Technical Glitches on the Common Portal: The court acknowledged that Rule 117(1A) permitted registered persons to submit declarations up to 31.12.2019 if they faced technical glitches on the common portal. The Delhi High Court in Krish Automotors Pvt. Ltd. directed authorities to permit electronic or manual submission of TRAN-I forms due to technical issues. Similarly, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Adlfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. recognized unutilized credit as a vested right that couldn't be taken away on procedural or technical grounds. 3. Constitutional Rights and Legitimate Expectation: The court cited the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Siddharth Enterprises, which held that denying credit of tax paid under existing Acts would violate Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution. The court emphasized that unutilized credit is a vested right and property under Article 300A, which cannot be deprived without legal authority. The principle of legitimate expectation, based on Article 14 and the rule of fairness, was also highlighted, asserting that procedural or technical grounds should not deny the right to carry forward credit. Conclusion: The court concluded that the legitimate rights of the petitioners to carry forward unutilized credit could not be denied on technical grounds. The court directed the respondents to permit the petitioners to file or revise TRAN-I forms electronically or manually on or before 31.12.2019. The respondents were allowed to verify the genuineness of the claims in accordance with the law. The judgment emphasized the need for fairness and non-arbitrariness in state actions, aligning with constitutional principles and the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
|
