2021 (3) TMI 791 - HC - GST

Seeking reopening of portal for filing TRAN Declaration form - Section 140(3) of the CGST Act - HELD THAT - Issue covered in the case of M/S. CHECKPOINT APPAREL LABELING SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF GST CENTRAL EXCISE 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF GST CENTRAL EXCISE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX (CGST) THE NODAL OFFICER GST GRIEVANCES GOODS AND SERVICE TAX NETWORK 2020 (8) TMI 209 - MADRAS HIGH COURT where it was held that The exchange of communications between 28.12.2017 and 01.01.2020 reveal that the petitioner has been diligent in making efforts to open the portal and upload the forms and the respondents are directed to do the needful forthwith to enable the petitioner to upload the requisite forms. In the present case also the petitioner has made out a clear case for grant of relief. The third respondent is said to be the nodal officer. The respondents 2 and 3 are directed to facilitate the uploading of Form TRAN-1 by the petitioner as originally prayed for by her - application allowed.

Issues:
1. Claiming credit under Section 140(3) of the CGST Act for inputs held in stock on the appointed day.
2. Technical glitches preventing the filing of Form GST TRAN-1 within the stipulated period.
3. Judicial interpretation of Rule 117 of CGST Rules, 2017 regarding the extension of the due date for filing the declaration electronically.
4. Requirement for establishing technical difficulties and the impact on the transition of credit under GST regime.
5. Precedents from other High Courts influencing the decision-making process.

Issue 1: Claiming credit under Section 140(3) of the CGST Act for inputs held in stock on the appointed day.

The petitioner, a registered dealer under the TNVAT Act, migrated to the GST regime and sought credit under Section 140(3) of the CGST Act for eligible duties on inputs held in stock as of 30.06.2017. The petitioner was required to submit Form GST TRAN-1 on the common portal within the specified timeline, which was extended multiple times, with the final date being 31.03.2020. The petitioner claimed technical glitches prevented timely filing and made efforts to submit the form manually and through representations. The Special Government Pleader contended that the petitioner missed the deadline, opposing any relief.

Issue 2: Technical glitches preventing the filing of Form GST TRAN-1 within the stipulated period.

The petitioner faced technical challenges in filing Form GST TRAN-1 due to glitches on the common portal. Despite personal visits to the office of the second respondent and submission of representations, the petitioner could not successfully upload the form within the extended deadline. The petitioner even provided evidence of attempts to upload the form. The court considered the impact of technical difficulties on the petitioner's ability to comply with the filing requirements.

Issue 3: Judicial interpretation of Rule 117 of CGST Rules, 2017 regarding the extension of the due date for filing the declaration electronically.

The court referred to a previous order in W.P.No.3328 of 2020, where it was noted that Rule 117 was amended to extend the due date for submitting the declaration electronically. The court highlighted the requirement for an assessee to establish technical difficulties, as mentioned in a circular, and the challenges faced by taxpayers in meeting such requirements. The court emphasized the need to differentiate between the transition of credit and its utilization, underscoring the importance of verification by an Assessing Officer.

Issue 4: Requirement for establishing technical difficulties and the impact on the transition of credit under GST regime.

The court acknowledged the challenges posed by Rule 117 in the GST regime, noting that transition alone does not confer rights on the assessee. The utilization of credit is contingent upon verification and assessment by the Assessing Officer. The court emphasized the need to understand the distinction between credit transition and its utilization post-verification, highlighting the significance of proper perspective in such matters.

Issue 5: Precedents from other High Courts influencing the decision-making process.

The court relied on precedents from other High Courts, including judgments from Punjab and Haryana High Court and Gujarat High Court, to support its decision. These cases provided guidance on similar issues related to technical glitches, extension of due dates, and the rights of taxpayers in claiming credit under the GST regime. The court's decision was influenced by the reasoning and outcomes of these previous judgments, reinforcing the petitioner's case for relief.

In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition, directing the concerned officers to facilitate the uploading of Form TRAN-1 by the petitioner within a specified timeframe. The decision was based on the petitioner's demonstrated efforts to comply with the requirements, the impact of technical glitches, and the interpretation of relevant provisions under the CGST Act and Rules.

← Previous Next →