2018 (8) TMI 1415 - HC - GST

Carry forward of balance CENVAT Credit as on 30.06.2017 - migration to GST Regime - petitioner did not file return within stipulated time - Held that - Unless there is some prima facie evidence of genuine attempts at filing the returns having failed on account of technical errors, accepting a bald declaration by the petitioner would virtually amount to extending the time limit for filing the returns and this would lead to chaotic results. There is nothing on record to suggest that all throughout from 01.07.2017 till 27.12.2017, the petitioner made multiple efforts at filing the returns making necessary declarations of unused CENVAT Credit - In absence of any other material suggesting genuine honest attempt on the part of the petitioner to file the return electronically, the same having failed on account of portal error or some such technical error attributable to the department, it would not be possible to extend the time limit for the petitioner. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
- Direction sought to carry forward balance CENVAT Credit available as on 30.06.2017 under GST regime.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a private company engaged in manufacturing, had CENVAT Credit of &8377;8.80 lakhs as of 30.06.2017, the last day of the CENVAT regime. The introduction of GST allowed for the transfer of such credit under section 140 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act. Rule 117 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules specified a time limit for filing returns and making declarations for unused CENVAT Credit, which was extended until 27.12.2017. Despite this, the petitioner failed to file the necessary declarations electronically by the deadline.

2. The petitioner's first communication regarding the issue was on 27.04.2018, citing portal errors as the reason for non-compliance. However, the department responded on 03.05.2018, stating that physical returns were not permissible and that no contact was made during the filing period to address e-filing difficulties. Subsequently, the petition seeking direction was filed.

3. The High Court, after hearing the petitioner's counsel, declined to intervene. While acknowledging that some High Courts had considered technical difficulties in filing returns, the Court emphasized the need to examine each case individually. Without concrete evidence of genuine attempts to file returns despite technical errors, accepting a mere declaration from the petitioner would effectively extend the filing deadline, leading to disorderly outcomes.

4. The Court observed that there was no evidence to suggest continuous efforts by the petitioner to file returns between 01.07.2017 and 27.12.2017. The petitioner's first written communication came four months after the deadline, with no additional proof of sincere attempts to file electronically. In the absence of substantial evidence indicating failed attempts due to technical errors, the Court refused to extend the time limit for the petitioner.

5. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and the necessity of providing substantial evidence of genuine efforts to meet compliance requirements under the GST regime.