9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 977 - HC - GSTConstitutional Validity of declaration that Rule 117 and Rule 120A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - revision of the Form TRAN-1 and Form TRAN-2 - seeking to allow the petitioner to take credit under section 140(3) on the invoices missed out during the initial filing - HELD THAT - Insofar as judgment of this court in the case of Heritage Lifestyles and Developers and Private Limited (supra) relied upon by the petitioners is concerned, a perusal of the said judgment indicates that the petitioner in that case was allowed to make such claim if the petitioner was otherwise eligible for credit of the amount. Considering those facts, this Court in the said judgment directed the respondents to accept the TRAN-1 filed by the petitioner and to give the due of input tax credit in the electronic credit ledger/input tax credit of the petitioner within two weeks from the date of the order. The interest of justice would be served if we allow the petitioner to correct Form TRAN-1 in Writ Petition No. 1609/2019 and to file Form TRAN-2 without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties. The respondents shall consider the issue whether the Form TRAN-1 and other forms that would be filed/corrected by the petitioner can be entertained in accordance with the provisions of section 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rule 117 (1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 or not - Jurisdictional Assessing Authority shall also consider all the issues that would be raised by the petitioner including the issue on merits simultaneously. Writ petitions are disposed of.
Issues:
1. Challenge to the validity of Rule 117 and Rule 120A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. 2. Revision of Form TRAN-1 and Form TRAN-2 for claiming credit under section 140(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 3. Interpretation of the time prescribed under Rule 117(1) as directory or mandatory. 4. Application of previous judgments regarding the acceptance of Form TRAN-1 for claiming input tax credit. Analysis: 1. Validity of Rules 117 and 120A: The petitioner sought a declaration that Rule 117 and Rule 120A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 are ultra vires the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that the rules should be struck down. The respondents, however, relied on previous judgments to support the validity of these rules. 2. Revision of Forms and Claiming Credit: The petitioner filed Form TRAN-1 but missed claiming a significant amount. The petitioner requested permission to correct the mistake, which was not allowed due to the restrictions under the rules. The petitioner then filed a writ petition challenging the rules and seeking the revision of Form TRAN-1 and Form TRAN-2 to claim the missed credit under section 140(3) of the Act. 3. Interpretation of Time Prescribed: The petitioner's counsel argued that the time prescribed under Rule 117(1) should be considered directory, not mandatory. They cited judgments and previous cases to support this interpretation. The respondents, on the other hand, emphasized the mandatory nature of the rules and the constitutional validity upheld in previous judgments. 4. Application of Previous Judgments: The court considered previous judgments, including one where a petitioner was allowed to correct Form TRAN-1 for claiming credit. However, the court clarified that the acceptance of the form in that case did not establish that the provisions of section 140 and Rule 117 are directory. The court decided to allow the petitioner to correct Form TRAN-1 and file Form TRAN-2, leaving the final decision on acceptance to the jurisdictional Assessing Authority. In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petitions by allowing the petitioner to correct Form TRAN-1 and file Form TRAN-2, with the Assessing Authority to decide on the acceptance of these forms within a specified timeframe. The judgment clarified the interpretation of the rules and the application of previous judgments in similar cases, ensuring a fair consideration of the petitioner's claims.
|
