2021 (4) TMI 1095 - HC - GST

Opening of portal for filing of form GST TRAN-I electronically or to accept the same manually - migration to GST regime - Kerela VAT Act - HELD THAT - When the first respondent had all valid reasons to assume that the facilities to upload the necessary form was available till 30.12.2017, it is not available in the eye of law for the respondents to loathe the action of the first respondent in attempting to upload on 29.12.2017 - It is an undisputed fact that the assessees as well as the department have faced several difficulties, especially during the transitional stage of the new tax regime and even a Grievance Redressal Committee had also been formed for redressing the grievance of the dealers. The learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in issuing the judgment impugned - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Direction to open an online portal for filing GST TRAN-I.
2. Entitlement to carry forward tax credit under the earlier regime.
3. Validity of press release regarding deadline for filing GST TRAN-I.
4. Allegation of technical error in the common portal.
5. Interpretation of time limit extension for filing GST TRAN-I.
6. Consideration of dealer's reliance on press release during transitional stage.
7. Approach of Grievance Redressal Committee in dealing with issues.

Analysis:
1. The judgment involved a direction to open an online portal for the first respondent to file form GST TRAN-I electronically or manually. The Union of India and GST Council appealed against this direction.

2. The first respondent, an assessee under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, migrated to the GST regime seeking to carry forward tax credit from the earlier regime. A press release indicated a deadline for filing GST TRAN-I, leading the first respondent to attempt filing before the specified date.

3. The appeal challenged the finding of the Single Judge, arguing that there was no technical error in the common portal warranting the direction issued. The press release also mentioned that relevant notifications for decisions would follow, requiring verification before assuming an extended deadline.

4. The court acknowledged the press release issued on 20.11.2017, noting the absence of subsequent clarification or notification regarding any mistake in the specified date. Dealers relied on such statements, and the first respondent acted within the presumed deadline, not at fault for timing the filing closer to the expiry date.

5. Considering the circumstances, the court found the first respondent justified in assuming the availability of facilities to upload the form until 30.12.2017. The court emphasized that a person bound by a deadline is entitled to wait until the last day to act, especially during a transitional phase.

6. The court highlighted the difficulties faced by both assesses and the department during the transition to the new tax regime. A Grievance Redressal Committee dealt with the first respondent's issue in a hyper-technical manner, which the court deemed incorrect.

7. Ultimately, the court upheld the Single Judge's judgment, dismissing the appeal. The court clarified that the judgment should not serve as a precedent for future cases, emphasizing its applicability to the singular circumstances of the case.