2022 (4) TMI 1196 - HC - GST

Seeking to allow or permit to file revised TRAN-I Form - prayer to file upload GST TRAN-I since in the original TRAN-I which was filed within time there was some mistake due to inadvertence - non-speaking order - HELD THAT - It appears on perusal that against the aforesaid representations it has been rejected by one line order, dated 10th April, 2019, as appears at page 97 of the writ petition which is totally a non-speaking order and it does not deal with the contentions raised by the petitioner in the representations. Considering the submission of the parties, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the Assistant Commissioner, Nodal Officer IT Glitch/respondent concerned GST and Central Excise to consider and dispose of the representations of the petitioner in accordance with law and by passing a reasoned and speaking order by dealing with the contentions raised by the petitioner in the representations and after taking into consideration the reported decisions by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or its authorised representatives within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petitioner's grievance of not being allowed to file revised TRAN-I Form.
2. Validity of rejection of petitioner's representations by CGST authority.
3. Direction to consider petitioner's representations in accordance with law.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner contended that despite making repeated representations before the CGST authority regarding the filing of a revised TRAN-I Form due to inadvertent mistakes in the original filing within the statutory time, the authority rejected the representations through a non-speaking order. The petitioner cited various decisions of different High Courts to support its case. The High Court acknowledged the petitioner's submissions and directed the Assistant Commissioner to consider and dispose of the representations in question in accordance with the law. The order emphasized the need for a reasoned and speaking order that addresses the contentions raised by the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of communication of the order.

2. The High Court observed that the rejection of the petitioner's representations by the CGST authority through a non-speaking order was not in line with the principles of natural justice and fairness. By referring to the decisions cited by the petitioner from different High Courts, the Court highlighted the importance of addressing the contentions raised by the petitioner in a comprehensive manner. The Court directed the authority to reconsider the representations and issue a reasoned order after giving the petitioner an opportunity to present their case or be represented by authorized representatives.

3. In light of the submissions made by the parties and the legal precedents cited, the High Court disposed of the writ petition by instructing the Assistant Commissioner to review and address the petitioner's representations by passing a speaking order. The Court stressed the significance of considering the reported decisions and providing a fair hearing to the petitioner or their representatives. The direction aimed at ensuring that the grievances raised by the petitioner regarding the filing of the revised TRAN-I Form are addressed in a lawful and just manner within the stipulated timeframe.