2022 (12) TMI 42 - HC - GST

Seeking direction to respondent authorities to reset/ reopen the GST portal filing the GST TRAN-1 form for the petitioner - Transitional Credit - rectification of inadvertent of mistake its consultant or accept the physical copy of the Form GST TRAN-1 - HELD THAT - Undoubtedly the petition became entitled for submitting of his Form Tran-1 and Tran-2 in terms of the order of the Supreme Court in case of Union of India Vs. Filco Trade Centre 2022 (9) TMI 514 - SC ORDER . It is also an admitted factual position that the period for submission of the form Tran-1 and Tran-2 or portal is open up till 30.11.2022. The petitioner having availed the said benefit and having attempted to submit his form Tran-1 and Tran-2 and where certain inadvertence took place. Under the said circumstances it cannot be said that the provision under Rule 120A would not be applicable. In the case of the petitioner or any other similarly placed person. In the instant case the circular dated 09.09.2022 is primarily a clarification instructions and the said clarificatory instructions cannot have an overriding effect over the Act or the Rules. When Rule 120A provides for revising of the declaration in form GST Tran-1 once, only because the portal has been opened as a one time measure by itself cannot be construed that the Rule 120A cannot be made applicable when the period for submission of Form Tran-1 is still open in terms of the order of the Supreme Court even as on date. The Supreme Court also has nowhere held that the applicability of Rule 120A would not be available to those persons who are to submit their Form Tran-1 and Tran-2 in terms of its order. This court therefore is of the opinion that taking into consideration the Rule 120A, it is ordered that the respondents No.1 2 may instruct the respondent No.5 to open the portal so far as the petitioner is concerned for once in terms of Rule 120A permitting the petitioner to revise the declaration and thereafter permit him to submit the same and complete the filing - the respondents No.1,2 and 5 are further directed to ensure that all necessary steps are taken as far as possible before the time limit provided by the Supreme Court i.e. by 30.11.2022 if not at the earliest. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petitioner seeking relief to reopen GST portal for filing GST TRAN-1 form and rectifying mistakes.
2. Interpretation of Supreme Court orders regarding submission of Tran-1 and Tran-2 forms.
3. Applicability of circular dated 09.09.2022 on revising Tran-1 and Tran-2 applications.
4. Analysis of Rule 120A of the Central GST Rules, 2017 and its relevance in the case.
5. Determining if the petitioner should be allowed to revise the declaration despite the circular's restrictions.

Issue 1:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking relief to reopen the GST portal for filing the GST TRAN-1 form and rectifying inadvertent mistakes made by their consultant. The petitioner also requested the court to allow eligible transitional credit as per Section 140 of the CGST Act.

Issue 2:
The Supreme Court's orders in Union of India Vs. Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. directed the GSTN to open the portal for filing Transitional Credit forms for a specified period. The court ordered that any aggrieved registered assessee could file or revise the forms, and officers were to verify the claims within 90 days. The petitioner, despite submitting Tran-1 and Tran-2 forms, faced technical glitches and was unable to rectify errors due to system limitations.

Issue 3:
The Union of India argued that the circular dated 09.09.2022 restricted revising Tran-1 and Tran-2 applications once filed. The petitioner's counsel contended that Rule 120A of the GST Rules allowed for revision, and the circular should not override statutory provisions. The court noted that circulars cannot dilute statutory provisions and ordered the authorities to open the portal for the petitioner to revise the declaration.

Issue 4:
Rule 120A of the Central GST Rules, 2017 permits revising declarations electronically once filed within the specified time period. The petitioner's counsel argued that the Supreme Court's order did not exclude the application of Rule 120A, and the provision should be available for revising declarations.

Issue 5:
The court held that the circular's clarificatory instructions should not override statutory provisions like Rule 120A. It directed the authorities to open the portal for the petitioner to revise the declaration once, emphasizing that no further permission for revision would be granted. The respondents were instructed to ensure compliance before the deadline set by the Supreme Court.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal interpretations, arguments presented by both parties, and the court's reasoning in granting relief to the petitioner within the framework of relevant laws and court orders.