2022 (7) TMI 911 - HC - GST

Seeking opening of portal for filing of Form TRAN-1 - Crystallization of input tax credit - vested right - Form TRAN-1 could not be uploaded in time or in appropriate form - transition to GST regime - HELD THAT - In the bunch of writ petitions the facts may be slightly different in the sense that each of the writ petition may have a peculiar problem but the common feature in all the writ petitions is that on account of a technical glitch or on account of the assesses not being felt sensitized with the system or on account of other connectivity issues or when the assesses/dealers are located in remote corners of the State Form TRAN-1 could not be uploaded in time or in appropriate form - the other common but most important feature in all these cases is the entitlement of the writ petitioners to the input credit has crystallized. This crystallized right, which ripened into the vested right, is now being denied to the writ petitioners on account of procedural problem. In this factual background, it is required to examine as to whether the order or direction passed by the learned Single Judge was appropriate or otherwise. Keeping the underlying principle in mind if the matter is examined then we are inclined to lean in favour of the writ petitioners and affirm the directions issued by the learned Single Judge - the substantial part of the order and the directions issued by the learned writ Court as well as reasoning given merits acceptance. The writ petitions are disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioners to file individual tax credit in GSTR-3b forms for the month of June, 2022 to be filed in the month of July, 2022 subject to verification of genuineness of the claim of the petitioner in all these cases.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Similarity of issues in multiple writ petitions.
2. Denial of input credit due to procedural problems.
3. Examination of appropriateness of the order passed by the Single Judge.
4. Difficulty faced by assesses in transitioning to the GST regime.
5. Consideration of directions issued by the Single Judge.
6. Comparison with decisions from other High Courts.
7. Disposal of writ petitions with liberty to file tax credit in GSTR-3b forms.

Analysis:

1. The High Court heard and disposed of multiple writ petitions by a common order due to the similarity of issues involved. The petitions raised concerns similar to those addressed in previous judgments by the Division Bench and the Bombay High Court.

2. The key issue revolved around the denial of input credit to the writ petitioners despite their entitlement to it. The denial stemmed from procedural problems such as technical glitches, lack of sensitization with the system, connectivity issues, or failure to upload Form TRAN-1 in time or in the appropriate form.

3. The Court examined the appropriateness of the Single Judge's order in light of the assesses' crystallized right to input credit. It emphasized that assesses should not be prejudiced by procedural issues when they have substantially complied with legal requirements.

4. The Court acknowledged the challenges faced by assesses in transitioning to the GST regime and highlighted the importance of upholding their vested rights to input credit. It emphasized the need to consider the underlying principles and ensure assesses are not unduly disadvantaged by technicalities.

5. In considering the directions issued by the Single Judge, the Court leaned in favor of the writ petitioners. It affirmed the need to allow assesses to file or revise their TRAN-1 returns to claim input credit, emphasizing the importance of a practical and workable solution.

6. The Court referenced decisions from other High Courts, such as the Punjab and Haryana High Court, to support its reasoning. It highlighted the importance of providing an assessee-friendly approach in resolving issues related to input credit under the GST regime.

7. Ultimately, the Court disposed of all writ petitions by granting liberty to the petitioners to file individual tax credit in GSTR-3b forms for a specific period, subject to verification by the concerned GST authorities. The decision aimed to ensure that genuine claims of the petitioners were considered and allowed based on the precedents set by previous judgments.