9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 780 - HC - GSTRectification of error in Form GST TRAN-1 - due date for filing of Form GST TRAN-2 - Rule 117 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT - There is no dispute that Form GST TRAN-1 was submitted by the first respondent and there was a bona fideerror committed by the first respondent by not incorporating the quantity of goods held in stock in Column 7B of the prescribed form. On 7th March 2018, a notification was issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs by which the Central Goods and Services Tax (Second Amendment) Rules, 2018 were published which enabled a registered person to submit a statement in Form GST TRAN-2 by 31st March 2018 or within such extended period as may be decided by the Commissioner. Accordingly, the first respondent attempted to file TRAN-2 which could not be filed due to an error generated as a result of the failure of the first respondent to incorporate the quantity of goods held in stock in Column 7B of Form GST TRAN-1. There is no dispute that there was a bona fide mistake committed by the first respondent while filling Form GST TRAN-1 in early days of GST regime. This is a case where in very early days of implementation of GST, one column was inadvertently not filled in Form GST TRAN-1. The Form GST TRAN-1 was filed within the time stipulated by law. The learned Single Judge and the various High Courts have passed orders granting permission to either submit Form GST TRAN-1 electronically by opening the online portal for that purposes or allowing the petitioner to tender form manually on or before 15th October 2019. This was done as the Form GST TRAN-2 could not be filed as there was an inadvertent omission in one column by failing to mention the quantity of goods held in stock. No illegality has been committed by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order - appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 117 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 regarding the filing of Form GST TRAN-2. 2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to issue directions contrary to statutory provisions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Validity of the order enabling the first respondent to file Form GST TRAN-2. 4. Legal implications of inadvertent errors in filling Form GST TRAN-1 during the early days of GST implementation. 5. Consistency of decisions by various High Courts in similar cases. Analysis: 1. The judgment dealt with the interpretation of Rule 117 of the CGST Rules concerning the filing of Form GST TRAN-2. The respondent failed to mention the quantity of goods held in stock in Form GST TRAN-1 due to an inadvertent error. The High Court considered the timeline of events and the amendments made to the rules allowing the submission of Form GST TRAN-2 by a specified date or an extended period. 2. The appellant argued against the directions issued by the Single Judge, contending that such directions were contrary to statutory provisions and exceeded the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appellant relied on a Supreme Court decision to support the argument against the High Court's directions. 3. The validity of the order enabling the first respondent to file Form GST TRAN-2 was questioned by the appellants, citing provisions of the CGST Act and CGST Rules. The High Court analyzed the circumstances, including the inadvertent error made by the respondent and the efforts to rectify the mistake within the prescribed timelines. 4. The judgment highlighted the legal implications of inadvertent errors made during the early days of GST implementation, emphasizing that the error in filling Form GST TRAN-1 was unintentional. The High Court referenced decisions by other High Courts, such as the Delhi High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which supported granting relief in similar cases of inadvertent errors. 5. The High Court noted the consistency in decisions by various High Courts in similar cases involving inadvertent errors in filling GST forms during the initial phase of GST implementation. References were made to decisions by the Delhi High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which supported granting relief to rectify unintentional errors made by taxpayers. The judgment concluded by dismissing the appeal and upholding the order enabling the first respondent to file Form GST TRAN-2.
|
