2020 (9) TMI 250 - HC - GST

Reopening of portal immediately enabling the Writ Petitioner to submit its GST TRAN-1 Form - time limitation u/r 117 of SGST Rules - Section 140 of the CGST and APSGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - Rule 117 of the SGST Rules prescribed a period of 90 days from the appointed day to file Form GST TRAN-1 mentioning the amount of transitional input tax credit claimed by the registered person. The Form GST TRAN-1 is to be filed electronically on the common portal within the time fixed in the Rule initially or extended by notifications - Though the prescribed time of 90 days from the appointed date expired on 29.09.2017, but the Respondent authorities have been extending time for uploading VAT Credit in Form TRAN-1 from time-to-time. A similar issue came up before the Division Bench of this Court for consideration. Relying upon the judgments in UNINAV DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS. 2019 (8) TMI 85 - DELHI HIGH COURT , BHARGAVA MOTORS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS. 2019 (5) TMI 899 - DELHI HIGH COURT , and KUSUM ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., SANKO GOSEI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS. 2019 (7) TMI 945 - DELHI HIGH COURT , the Court disposed of the writ petition, on 13.08.2019, directing the respondents to either open the portal so as to enable the petitioner to again file the Form GST TRAN-1 electronically or in the alternative, accept the Form GST TRAN-1 presented manually by fixing a cut of date and process the claim in accordance with law. Having regard to the judgments referred, this Writ Petition is disposed of in terms thereof directing the respondents concerned to permit the Writ Petitioner to submit GST TRAN-1 Form electronically or, in the alternative, manually, by fixing a cut off date, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of judgment, in which event, the same may be dealt with, in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues:
1) Petitioner seeking Mandamus to submit GST TRAN-1 Form
2) Technical glitches preventing online submission
3) Opposing counsel citing precedent of manual submission
4) Evidence of efforts to submit Form GST TRAN-1
5) Interpretation of Section 140 and Rule 117 of SGST Act

Analysis:
1) The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking a Mandamus to declare the inaction of the Respondents in reopening the portal for submitting the GST TRAN-1 Form. The petitioner also requested a refund of VAT credit. The issue revolved around the petitioner's inability to submit the form electronically due to technical glitches and poor internet connectivity, leading to the plea for manual submission.

2) The petitioner, a partnership concern in the pulses and turmeric business, sought to claim transitional credit under Section 140 of the APSGST and CGST Act. The petitioner highlighted the challenges faced in uploading the form due to technical difficulties on the GST common portal. The petitioner argued that the courts have allowed manual submissions in similar cases, emphasizing that technology should not hinder taxpayers.

3) The opposing counsel cited a judgment from the Madras High Court where manual submission was allowed for an illiterate petitioner, arguing that the present case differed. However, the petitioner provided evidence of efforts made to submit the form electronically, countering the opposition's stance.

4) The petitioner submitted screenshots of the GSTN common portal to demonstrate the attempts made to upload the Form GST TRAN-1. The petitioner's persistent efforts, along with interactions with the Nodal Officer and correspondence with authorities, supported the claim for manual submission.

5) The Court analyzed Section 140 and Rule 117 of the SGST Act, which govern the transitional arrangements for input tax credit. The Court noted the prescribed period for filing Form GST TRAN-1 and extensions granted by the authorities. Referring to previous judgments, the Court directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to submit the form electronically or manually within 30 days from the judgment date, ensuring compliance with the law. The Court's decision aligned with precedents, emphasizing the importance of facilitating taxpayer claims within the legal framework.