IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmohan, Sanjeev Narula, JJ.
Super India Paper Products - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 1150 of 2020, 2326 of 2020, 12486 of 2019, 1224 of 2020, 3759 of 2020, 3760 of 2020, 3761 of 2020, 3766 of 2020, 12162 of 2019, 12686 of 2019, 3793 of 2020, 3988 of 2020, 3996 of 2020, 12608 of 2019, 1232 of 2020, 3690 of 2020, 5847 of 2020, 3758 of 2020, 13680 of 2019, 1831 of 2020, 7111 of 2020, 8583 of 2020, 221 of 2020, 3658 of 2020,; C.M. Appl No. 3814 of 2020, 8161 of 2020, 32784 of 2020, 49749 of 2019, 51786 of 2019, 6347 of 2020, 708 of 2020,
Decided On : 27-05-2021
GST - TRANSITION OF CENVAT CREDIT - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [ACT SECTION LIST] - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
Numerous taxpayers faced difficulties in filing the online TRAN-1 Form due to technical glitches and shortcomings in the online system. Several courts acknowledged the difficulties faced by the taxpayers and directed the GST authorities to reopen the portal or to allow manual filing of the TRAN-1 Form.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the period prescribed under Rule 117 of the Rules for filing the TRAN-1 Form was merely directory and not mandatory. The Court also observed that the benefit of the decision should be available to all the taxpayers and directed the Revenue to publicize the judgment on their website and by other means so that taxpayers who were unable to file the TRAN-1 Form within the specified date but were otherwise within the period of three years, would be able to take benefit of the judgment and file the requisite TRAN-1 Form.
Issues: Whether the time period prescribed under Rule 117 of the Rules for filing the TRAN-1 Form was directory or mandatory.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the period prescribed under Rule 117 of the Rules for filing the TRAN-1 Form was merely directory and not mandatory. The Court also observed that the benefit of the decision should be available to all the taxpayers and directed the Revenue to publicize the judgment on their website and by other means so that taxpayers who were unable to file the TRAN-1 Form within the specified date but were otherwise within the period of three years, would be able to take benefit of the judgment and file the requisite TRAN-1 Form.
Final Decision: All the petitions in the first, second and third batch are allowed, and all the pending applications also stand disposed of. Respondents are directed to either re-open the online portal so as to enable the Petitioners to file TRAN-1 Form electronically, or to accept the same manually on or before 30th June, 2021. The Respondents shall process the Petitioners' claims in accordance with law once the TRAN-1 Form is filed.
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Narula, J. - The common thread in this present batch of petitions is that they pertain to transition of CENVAT credit from the erstwhile indirect tax regime to the present Goods and Services Tax ('GST') system by virtue of a right specifically conferred on the taxpayers for smooth migration into the new indirect tax regime.
I. BRIEF BACKGROUND:
2. Chapter XX of the CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter "the Act"), which deals with transitional provisions, allows for transition of unutilized CENVAT credit available under the previous regime. The statute provides for filing form GST TRAN-1 (hereinafter "TRAN-1 Form") by furnishing details of amount of CENVAT credit sought to be carried forward in the return, relating to the period ending with the day immediately preceding the appointed date, i.e., 1st July, 2017. The last extended date for filing the TRAN-1 Form, was prescribed as 27th December, 2017.
3. Unfortunately, the transitionary mechanism was not smooth and easy for numerous taxpayers. Several factors, including technical glitches and shortcomings in the online system, prevented or obstructed them from filing the TRAN-1 Form by the above deadline. Many taxpayers complained of poor/low internet bandwidth and cited various other technological hindrances while accessing the online portal closer to the deadline, that hindered their attempts. After the cut-off date, the filing was blocked on the online portal.
4. Taxpayers narrating their grievances petitioned this Court and several other High Courts in the country seeking directions to Respondent to re-open the portal. Concurrently, the Government took cognizance of the complaints and acknowledged the genuine problems faced by the taxpayers. Resultantly, a redressal mechanism to address the IT-related glitches was set up, being the IT Grievance Redressal Committee ('ITGRC'). The necessary amendments in the CGST Rules, 2017 (hereinafter "the Rules") were also made by incorporating Rules 117(1A) and 120A, and correspondingly, the deadline for filing TRAN-1 Form was extended.
5. While this provided an opportunity to taxpayers to file the TRAN-1 Form, the benefit was confined only to a specific class of cases where taxpayers could not submit the declaration before the due date purely on account of technical difficulties on the common portal and in respect of whom the GST Council had made a recommendation for such extension. Taxpayers had to furnish digital evidence before the Nodal Officer of the ITGRC showing their attempt to file the form before the deadline, by way of screenshots, correspondence etc.
6. Hence, all the taxpayers could not avail the benefit of this relaxation, and this batch of Petitioners broadly fall in that category. Few of them have digital evidence to support their case but raise the grievance that Respondents have dealt with them in an unfair and arbitrary manner by unreasonably rejecting the proof adduced by them. Some of the taxpayers do not possess evidence like the screenshots to support their case but contend that digital evidence alone should not be the yardstick to test the genuineness of their claims. Others acknowledge that they committed mistakes while filing the TRAN-1 Form as they were not well-versed with the online system and found it cumbersome and complicated and make a plea that they should be afforded another opportunity to claim their legally vested right.
The view taken by this Court and other High Courts
7. The difficulties faced by the taxpayers while filing the online TRAN-1 Form, occurring largely on account of the technical glitches, have been noted in a plethora of decisions by both this Court as well as other High Courts. It has been acknowledged that the unutilized input tax credit is a vested right of the taxpayers under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, 1950 that cannot be taken away on account of technical grounds. Siddharth Enterprises v. Nodal Officer,2019 29 GSTL 664 It has also been appreciated that, since GST i
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 court established that procedural timelines should not infringe upon vested rights to claim tax credits, especially in light of technical challenges faced by taxpayers.
Inadvertent and genuine mistakes in filing the TRAN-1 Form should not preclude taxpayers from having their claims examined by the authorities, and the lack of sufficient time provided to upload the d....
Inadvertent errors in GST form filings should not prevent taxpayers from claiming transitional input tax credit, ensuring equitable access to rights under GST regulations.
Authorities must act reasonably and fairly, ensuring assessees are not deprived of legal benefits due to technical errors in filing forms.
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.
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.