9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (7) TMI 23 - HC - GSTFiling of form TRAN-I - availment of credit of excess VAT reflected in Returns - vires of Rule 117(1A) of Central GST Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT - The Petitioner has challenged vires of Rule 117 (1A) of Rules, however we do not think it appropriate to declare it invalid as we are of the considered opinion that Petitioner is entitled to carry forward Cenvat Credit accrued under Central Excise Act, 1944. The Respondents have repeatedly extended date to file TRAN-I where there was technical glitch as per their understanding. Repeated extensions of last date to file TRAN-I in case of technical glitches as understood by Respondent vindicate claim of the Petitioner that denial of unutilized credit to those dealers who are unable to furnish evidence of attempt to upload TRAN-I would amount to violation of Article 14 as well Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The Respondents are directed to permit Petitioner to upload TRAN-I on or before 30.06.2020 and in case Respondent fails to do so, the Petitioner would be at liberty to avail ITC in question in GSTR-3B of July 2020 - Petition allowed.
Issues:
Challenge to vires of Rule 117(1A) of Central GST Rules, 2017 and seeking permission to upload form TRAN-I for credit of excess VAT due to technical glitches. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a partnership firm trading electronic items, registered under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, sought to claim credit of duties and VAT pre-GST by filing Form GST TRAN-1, but failed to do so by the deadline. The Commissioner extended the deadline to file TRAN-I till 31.03.2020 under Rule 117(1A). 2. The petitioner contended that the issue aligns with the judgment in Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, upheld by the Delhi High Court in Brand Equity Treaties Ltd. vs. Union of India. The Delhi High Court directed the filing of TRAN-I by 30.06.2020 for similarly situated taxpayers. 3. The court noted that several petitions, including Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd., were allowed by the Division Bench, directing the opening of the portal for TRAN-I filing. The Delhi High Court permitted revision of TRAN-I till 30.06.2020, emphasizing fair treatment of taxpayers by the government. 4. The Delhi High Court criticized the narrow interpretation of "technical difficulties" under Rule 117(1A) as arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. It emphasized that CENVAT credit is the property of the assessee under Article 300A and cannot be arbitrarily denied. 5. The court declined to declare Rule 117(1A) invalid but allowed the petitioner to carry forward CENVAT credit, stating that repeated extensions by the Respondents for filing TRAN-I due to technical glitches support the claim of denial being a violation of constitutional rights. 6. Relying on the judgments of Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Brand Equity Treaties Ltd., the court allowed the petition, directing the Respondents to permit TRAN-I upload by 30.06.2020. The petitioner could avail ITC in GSTR-3B of July 2020 if the Respondent failed to comply, with verification rights retained by the Respondents.
|
