2020 (7) TMI 197 - HC - GST

Vires of Rule 117(1A) of Haryana GST Rules, 2017 - permission to upload form TRAN-I in order to avail credit of excess VAT reflected in Returns - HELD THAT - The Petitioner has challenged vires of Rule 117 (1A) of Rules, however we do not think it appropriate to declare it invalid as we are of the considered opinion that Petitioner is entitled to carry forward Cenvat Credit accrued under Central Excise Act, 1944. The Respondents have repeatedly extended date to file TRAN-I where there was technical glitch as per their understanding. Repeated extensions of last date to file TRAN-I in case of technical glitches as understood by Respondent vindicate claim of the Petitioner that denial of unutilized credit to those dealers who are unable to furnish evidence of attempt to upload TRAN-I would amount to violation of Article 14 as well Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The Respondents are directed to permit Petitioner to upload TRAN-I on or before 30.06.2020 and in case Respondent fails to do so, the Petitioner would be at liberty to avail ITC in question in GSTR-3B of July 2020.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the vires of Rule 117(1A) of Haryana GST Rules, 2017 and seeking direction to upload Form TRAN-I to avail credit of excess VAT due to technical glitches on the GST Portal.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a trading business registered under the CGST Act, sought to claim credit of duties and VAT on inputs by filing Form GST TRAN-1. However, due to technical issues, the petitioner missed the deadline to upload TRAN-I. The court considered judgments from previous cases, including Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, and decisions from the Delhi High Court, which allowed similar petitions to file TRAN-I. The court noted that the issue was covered by previous judgments and directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to upload TRAN-I by a specified date.

The court highlighted the importance of addressing technical difficulties faced by taxpayers while transitioning to the GST regime. It emphasized that the government cannot adopt different standards for taxpayers and must ensure fairness and reasonableness in granting benefits under Rule 117(1A). The court criticized the narrow interpretation of "technical difficulties" and stressed that taxpayers should not be deprived of their rights unjustly. While the court did not declare Rule 117(1A) invalid, it deemed it violative of Article 14 of the Constitution for being arbitrary, discriminatory, and unreasonable.

Ultimately, the court allowed the petition based on precedents set by previous judgments and directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to upload TRAN-I by a specified date. If the respondents failed to do so, the petitioner was granted the liberty to claim the credit in the subsequent return. The court also allowed the respondents to verify the genuineness of the petitioner's claims, ensuring a fair process for all parties involved.