Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2020 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (6) TMI 440 - HC - GSTReopening of portal for claiming CENVAT Credit - vires of Rule 117 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the judgment in BRAND EQUITY TREATIES LIMITED, MICROMAX INFORMATICS LTD., DEVELOPER GROUP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, RELIANCE ELEKTRIK WORKS VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2020 (5) TMI 171 - DELHI HIGH COURT , has not been stayed so far and therefore, the respondents are under an obligation to abide by the directions issued therein by adequately publicising the said decision and uploading it on their website as also by opening its common portal to enable the petitioner and all similarly placed parties to upload Form GST Trans-1, for claiming CENVAT tax credit. The respondents are directed to ensure compliance of the captioned judgment by 19.06.2020, particularly since the cut of date fixed by the court in the said case is 30th June, 2020, which would leave only ten clear days for the petitioner and similarly placed assessees to take necessary steps. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Petitioner seeks directions to open the Portal to file CENVAT tax credit claim in Form Trans-1. 2. Petitioner seeks to declare Rule 117 of the CGST Rules, 2017 as ultra vires and quash it. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, represented by Mr. Bhatia, sought directions to the respondents to open the Portal for filing its claim of CENVAT tax credit in Form Trans-1 as of 30th June, 2017. Despite efforts, technical difficulties prevented the petitioner from uploading the claim, and requests to extend the deadline were denied by the respondents. 2. Referring to a previous judgment, the petitioner argued that the time limit of 90 days under Rule 117 of the CGST Rules is directory, not mandatory. The court directed the respondents to publicize this judgment and allow Assessees to upload Form GST Trans-1 by 30th June, 2020. However, the respondents did not comply, leading the petitioner to approach the court for relief. 3. Mr. Kuldeep Singh, representing the respondents, pointed out an error in the petitioner's choice of respondent, mentioning that the petitioner falls under a different jurisdiction. He informed the court that the respondents intended to challenge the previous judgment and were preparing to appeal to the Supreme Court. 4. The court noted that the previous judgment had not been stayed, obligating the respondents to follow its directions. They were instructed to publicize the decision, upload it on their website, and open the common portal for filing Form GST Trans-1 by 19.06.2020. The court emphasized the urgency due to the approaching deadline of 30th June, 2020, leaving only ten days for compliance. 5. The court disposed of the petition with the mentioned directions, without any costs imposed.
|