HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL AND HON'BLE SHRI SANJAY KUMAR
Union of India Through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue –Appellant
versus
M/s Jagdalpur Motors Through Director, Shri Niraj Sharma – Respondent
WA No. 56 of 2023
Decided on : 26-3-2025
(A) Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 140 - Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - Rule 120A - Transitional credit - Writ petition allowed directing authorities to open GST portal for revising FORM GST TRAN-1 due to technical glitches preventing submission - Authorities must act reasonably and fairly, not depriving assessees of legal benefits. (Paras 1, 3, 20)
(B) Circular dated 9-9-2022 - Clarification regarding submission of TRAN-1 - Cannot override statutory provisions allowing revision of forms. (Paras 17, 18)
Facts of the case:
The writ petitioner, an authorized dealer, was unable to file FORM GST TRAN-1 due to technical issues and sought permission to revise the form after mistakenly submitting it with NIL entries.
Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge's order to allow revision of FORM GST TRAN-1 was upheld, emphasizing the right to transitional credit.
Issues: Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in directing the opening of the GST portal for revising FORM GST TRAN-1.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the authorities must not deprive an assessee of legal benefits and that the circular cannot limit statutory rights.
Result: Writ appeal dismissed.
Order :
(Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.)
“12. … There can be no doubt that the authorities functioning under the Act must, as are in duty bound, protect the interest of the Revenue by levying and collecting the duty in accordance with law – no less and also no more. It is no part of their duty to deprive an assessee of the benefit available to him in law with a view to augment the quantum of duty for the benefit of the Revenue. They must act reasonably and fairly.”
1.The aforesaid statement of law rendered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Unichem Laboratories Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, (2002) 7 SCC 145 squarely applies to the facts of the present case, as in this case also, the writ petitioner was denied the benefit of filing the revised FORM GST TRAN-1 unfairly.
2.Invoking the writ appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006, the Union of India / appellants herein / respondents No.1, 2, 3 & 5 of the writ petition have preferred this writ appeal calling in question legality, validity and correctness of judgment & order dated 28-11-2022 passed by the writ court in W.P.(T) No.252/2022, by which the learned Single Judge has directed respondents No.1, 2 & 5 therein to open the portal so far as the writ petitioner is concerned for once and further directed to ensure that proper steps are taken on or before 30-11-2022 to submit the revised FORM GST TRAN-1.
(For the sake of convenience, parties would be referred as per their status and ranking shown in the writ petition before the writ court.)
QUESTION INVOLVED
3.The short question involved in this writ appeal is, whether the learned Single Judge is justified in directing respondents No.1, 2 & 5 therein to open the GST portal enabling the writ petitioner to submit the revised FORM GST TRAN-1 in view of Rule 120A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (for short, ‘the Central GST Rules’)?
BRIEF RELEVANT FACTS
4.The writ petitioner / respondent No.1 herein is engaged in the business of sale of motor vehicles & spare parts thereof and is the authorised dealer of TATA Motor Vehicles and purchases are made solely from TATA Motors under the dealership agreement and was a registered dealer under the erstwhile Central VAT (Value Added Tax) regime. As on 30-6-2017, the writ petitioner firm held goods amounting to ₹ 2,85,71,513/- in its stock on which CENVAT of ₹ 48,86,912/- was already paid and as such, according to the writ petitioner, CENVAT credit of the said amount was available to the writ petitioner firm. With effect from 1-7-2017, the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, ‘the Central GST Act’) came into force and Goods and Services Tax was implemented across the country and as per the scheme of the GST (whereby all different taxes were merged), all the entities who were possessing CENVAT credit were eligible for transitional credit in the GST regime in accordance with Section 140 of the Central GST Act upon making a declaration in this regard in FORM GST TRAN-1. As per Rule 117 of the Central GST Rules, the time limit for filing of such declaration was 90 days from the appointed day i.e. till 30-9-2017. However, from July, 2017 to September, 2017, due to technical glitches, many registered assessees were unable to file FORM GST TRAN-1 and the writ petitioner was one such assessee who was unable to file FORM GST TRAN-1 due to technical glitches. In the meanwhile, on 15-9-2017, Rule 120A was inserted in the Central GST Rules giving opportunity to the assessee to revise the TRAN-1 Form once. Ultimately, on 22-7- 2022, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and another v. Filco Trade Centre Private Limited and another, (2023) 1 SCC 562 issued directions to the GST authorities to open the common portal of Goods and Service Tax Network (GSTN) for filing concerned forms for availing transitional credit through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 for a
Authorities must act reasonably and fairly, ensuring assessees are not deprived of legal benefits due to technical errors in filing forms.
The court established that procedural timelines should not infringe upon vested rights to claim tax credits, especially in light of technical challenges faced by taxpayers.
The period prescribed under Rule 117 of the Rules for filing the TRAN-1 Form was merely directory and not mandatory.
Vested rights for transitioning unutilized CENVAT credits under the GST regime cannot be denied due to technical difficulties; taxpayers are entitled to rectify their filings.
The entitlement to Input Tax Credit cannot be denied on account of procedural problems and technical glitches.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that unutilized input tax credit is a vested right and property, and should not be denied on procedural or technical grounds.
The rights of the assessee in the credit standing in their favor cannot be deprived without authority of law, and relief can be granted based on technical glitches in filing forms.
Transitional credit rights under GST cannot be denied due to procedural shortcomings when there is no revenue loss, emphasizing the significance of legitimate claims in tax law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.