2020 (2) TMI 1105 - HC - GST

Permission to submit TRAN-1 form electronically by opening electronic portal - input tax credit under Rule 117 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT - The petitioner is a trader as defined under the provisions of the GST Act. Under Section 140(3) of the GST Act, the petitioner was entitled for availing input tax credit. That, for the purpose of availing the input tax credit, the petitioner was required to complete the formalities as envisaged under Rule 117 of the CGST Rules. Under the original rules, TRAN-1 was required to be filled by 31.09.2017. The said period was further extended till 31.11.2017 and again extended up till 27.12.2017 - There is no proof adduced by the petitioner of his having attempted to fill TRAN-1 during the said extended period up till 27.12.2017. As is discussed in the earlier paragraph, the Govt. of India itself vide their circular dated 03.04.2018 permitted filling up of TRAN-1 by the 31.04.2018, the said extended period of 31.04.2018 was however for only those who have in the past attempted but failed to fill up TRAN-1. There is no evidence made available by the petitioner of having tried to fill up TRAN-1, but was unsuccessful for availing the facilities so provided under circular dated 03.04.2018. What is also surprising is that the petitioner also has not mentioned anything in respect of having approached any of the competent authorities in the department raising his concern about his inability in filling up of TRAN-1. The relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be extended to those cases where the assessee defaults in not filling up of TRAN-1 even within the extended period up till 27.12.2017. The petitioner also failed to establish of having approached any of the officers in the department, nor is there any proof in his possession. There is also no document to show any correspondence made with any of the officers in the department in this regard. The writ benefit cannot be extended to such indolent persons who sleeps over their rights and duties without any plausible explanation and justification and now at the belated stage woke up from slumber and is trying to get a relief from the High Court without any bonafide ground - the petitioner had infact never tried to fill TRAN-1 within the stipulated period or within the extended period and also was not able to take advantage of circular dated 03.04.2018 if at all if he had bonafidely tried to fill TRAN-1. This court is of the opinion that no strong case is made out by the petitioner for issuance of any sort of writ to the respondents - Petition rejected.

Summary

Issues:
1. Relief sought for by the petitioner regarding submission of TRAN-1 form electronically or manually.
2. Technical glitches faced by the petitioner in filling TRAN-1 online.
3. Government circular allowing extension for filling TRAN-1.
4. Lack of evidence of petitioner's attempts to fill TRAN-1.
5. Contention of the respondents regarding petitioner's inaction.
6. Interpretation of rules and circulars related to availing input tax credit.
7. Comparison with judgments from other High Courts.
8. Assessment of petitioner's diligence and justification for seeking relief.

Issue 1: Relief sought for by the petitioner regarding submission of TRAN-1 form electronically or manually

The petitioner sought a writ for permission to submit TRAN-1 form electronically or manually, claiming technical glitches hindered online submission. The relief was based on the petitioner's request to allow submission through electronic portal or manual tendering for input tax credit assessment.

Issue 2: Technical glitches faced by the petitioner in filling TRAN-1 online

The petitioner, a trader under the GST Act, faced technical glitches while attempting to fill TRAN-1 online within the stipulated period. Despite efforts, the petitioner could not complete the form electronically due to errors, leading to inability to obtain proof of the attempts made.

Issue 3: Government circular allowing extension for filling TRAN-1

A circular issued by the Government allowed traders facing technical issues to fill TRAN-1 after demonstrating unsuccessful attempts. The circular extended the deadline to 31.04.2018 for such cases, providing a solution for those unable to complete the form due to IT glitches.

Issue 4: Lack of evidence of petitioner's attempts to fill TRAN-1

The respondents argued against granting relief, citing lack of evidence showing the petitioner's genuine efforts to fill TRAN-1 electronically or to promptly inform authorities about the technical difficulties faced during the extended periods.

Issue 5: Contention of the respondents regarding petitioner's inaction

The respondents highlighted the petitioner's failure to utilize the extended deadlines and the circular provisions for submitting TRAN-1, emphasizing the absence of proactive steps taken by the petitioner to address the issues faced in filling the form.

Issue 6: Interpretation of rules and circulars related to availing input tax credit

The court analyzed the rules under the GST Act and the circulars issued by the Government regarding the submission of TRAN-1, emphasizing the importance of fulfilling the requirements within the specified timelines and the procedures outlined in the circulars for resolving technical difficulties.

Issue 7: Comparison with judgments from other High Courts

The court distinguished the present case from judgments of other High Courts involving genuine attempts by traders to fill TRAN-1, as the petitioner failed to provide evidence of such attempts or timely communication with the authorities regarding the challenges faced.

Issue 8: Assessment of petitioner's diligence and justification for seeking relief

Based on the lack of evidence, delays in seeking assistance, and failure to meet the extended deadlines, the court concluded that the petitioner did not demonstrate a strong case for the issuance of a writ. The petition was rejected due to the petitioner's apparent inaction and failure to establish genuine efforts in filling TRAN-1 within the prescribed periods.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Chhattisgarh High Court provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the court's reasoning leading to the rejection of the petitioner's writ petition.