2020 (1) TMI 137 - HC - GST

Filing of GST TRAN-1 Form - transitional credit - Section 140 (3) of CGST Act - HELD THAT - The review petitioners placed reliance upon the judgment in M/S. MALIKA VEETIL AGENCIES VERSUS THE STATE TAX OFFICER SGST DEPARTMENT, PUNALUR, THE NODAL OFFICER FOR STATE GST STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAXES, TAX TOWER, KILLIPPALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THE NODAL OFFICER/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE, KOCHI, THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAXES, TAX TOWER, KILLIPPALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (REVENUE) , MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI 2019 (2) TMI 916 - KERALA HIGH COURT where this Court left the decision of the Nodal Officer concerned to decide whether delay in uploading details was attributable to the writ petitioners or not - The writ petitioners have no objections in giving similar directions. The review petitions are allowed holding that the directions in the said judgment would govern this matter as well - review petitions allowed.

Summary

Issues: Review petitions filed by Goods and Services Tax Council and Union Government against a previous judgment allowing submission of GST TRAN-1 Form due to technical snag.

The High Court of Kerala considered review petitions filed by the Goods and Services Tax Council and the Union Government challenging a previous judgment that permitted writ petitioners to submit GST TRAN-1 Form under Section 140(3) of the Central Act due to a technical issue. The Court noted that the writ petitioners faced technical glitches preventing them from uploading details. The review petitioners relied on a previous judgment, W.P.(C) No. 41337/2018, where the Court allowed petitioners to apply to the Nodal Officer for issue resolution. The Court emphasized that if the delay in uploading details was not attributable to the petitioners, they should be enabled to take credit of the input tax available during migration. The Court decided that the directions in the previous judgment would apply to the current matter, and all directions therein should be followed for the petitioners. Consequently, the review petitions were allowed, and the matter was disposed of in accordance with the directions provided in the earlier judgment.