2020 (1) TMI 703 - HC - GST

Refund of VAT - extension of time for filing of TRAN-1 form - Section 140 of the CGST and APSGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - The issue decided in the case of LANTECH PHARMACEUTICALS LTD, SRIKAKULAM VERSUS THE PRL COMMISSIONER VISAKHAPATNAM 2019 (10) TMI 477 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT where it was held that in the absence of evidence, the re-filing of the form by the petitioner was not allowed. This Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to either open the portal to enable the petitioner to again file the Form GST TRAN-1 electronically or in the alternative accept the Form GST TRAN-1 presented manually, on or before 31.01.2020.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petitioner seeking relief through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to submit TRAN-1 form on the GSTN Portal.
2. Failure to file TRAN-1 electronically due to technical glitches and non-consideration of representations by respondents.
3. Dispute over whether a genuine attempt was made to submit the form electronically within the allowed time.
4. Extension of time till 31.12.2019 for filing TRAN-1 electronically.
5. Argument regarding the trial and error phase of the GST system causing connectivity issues for the petitioner and other dealers.
6. Consideration of the petitioner's request in light of previous court orders and legal position.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking relief to submit its TRAN-1 form on the GSTN Portal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner claimed that technical glitches prevented online submission, and representations were disregarded by the respondents. The petitioner argued that the issue was similar to a previous court order. The Assistant Solicitor General contended that the petitioner failed to provide evidence of attempting to file the form electronically within the stipulated time. However, an extension was granted until 31.12.2019 for electronic filing. The petitioner's counsel highlighted the challenges faced by dealers due to system errors during the relevant period. The court, after considering the facts and submissions, found the issue aligned with previous orders and ruled in favor of the petitioner.

The court acknowledged the challenges faced by the petitioner and directed the respondents to either allow electronic submission of the form or accept manual submission by a specified date. The court emphasized that the petitioner's claim should be processed in accordance with the law once the form is submitted. No costs were awarded, and any related pending petitions were dismissed. The judgment provided relief to the petitioner based on the circumstances and legal precedents, ensuring the petitioner's claim could be processed appropriately.