9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 750 - HC - GSTCarry forward of transitional credit - vires of Rule 117 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - no evidence of error of submission/filing of TRAN-1 by the petitioner - HELD THAT - Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned special counsel for the respondent no.1 states on instruction of the Commissioner, Income Tax, Lucknow dated 19.11.2020 that time was extended under Rules 117 (1A) of UPGST Rules, firstly by order dated 17.09.2018, upto 31.01.2019, thereafter by order dated 31.01.2019, upto 31.03.2019 and lastly by order dated 07.02.2020, upto 31.03.2020. There is nothing on record to show that petitioner has ever attempted to file TRAN-1 during the extended period. There are no good reason to entertain the writ petition - writ petition is dismissed.
Issues:
1. Failure to file Form TRAN-1 due to technical glitch. 2. Interpretation of Rule 117 of the CGST Rules, 2017. 3. Extension of time for filing TRAN-1 form under sub-Rule 1/1A of Rule 117. 4. Consideration of evidence regarding the submission of TRAN-1 form. 5. Dismissal of the writ petition. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, primarily engaged in retail trade, faced a technical glitch preventing the filing of Form TRAN-1 to carry forward tax credit to the GST regime. Despite multiple attempts, the system displayed errors, hindering the submission. 2. Rule 117 of the CGST Rules, 2017, and U.P. GST Rules allow for the carry forward of tax credit under previous laws or on stock held on the GST regime's appointed day. The appointed day being 01.07.2017, the rules specify the period for submitting the TRAN-1 form within ninety days of the appointed day. 3. The Court examined Rule 117(1A) which permits an extension for submitting the declaration electronically in FORM GST TRAN-1 beyond the initial deadline in cases of technical difficulties. The Commissioner may extend the deadline based on Council recommendations, providing relief to affected registered persons. 4. The respondents presented evidence refuting the petitioner's claim of error in submitting the TRAN-1 form. The Additional Commissioner (Legal) CGST stated that the petitioner's case was reviewed and not approved in a meeting, while the Commissioner, Income Tax, Lucknow, confirmed extensions granted for filing TRAN-1, with no record of the petitioner attempting to file during the extended periods. 5. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, citing the lack of evidence supporting the petitioner's claims and the failure to file during extended deadlines. The dismissal was based on the information provided by the respondents, indicating no valid reason to entertain the petition. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the technical issues faced by the petitioner, the legal provisions governing tax credit carry forward, the extension possibilities under Rule 117, and the dismissal of the petition due to lack of evidence and failure to meet extended filing deadlines.
|
