IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Sanjeev Narula, JJ.
National Internet Exchange Of India - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10795 of 2020
Decided On : 19-01-2021
GST TRAN-1 - Revision of Form GST TRAN-1 - Companies Act - Section 25 - Finance Act, 1994 - CGST Act - Rule 117 of CGST Rules - Section 140 of CGST Act - Blue Bird Pure Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. - Arvind Beauty Brands Retail Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. - A B Pal Electricals Pvt ltd v. Union of India & Ors. - SRC Aviation (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. - Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI - Union of India & Ors. v. Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a not-for-profit company, sought to modify/revise Form GST TRAN-1 due to unintentional errors in the input tax credit claimed under the GST regime.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had filed the TRAN-1 form within the prescribed time and was eligible to carry forward the credit from the erstwhile tax regime to the GST regime. The court also noted that the difficulty faced by the petitioner was genuine and allowed the request to re-file the rectified TRAN-1 form.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be allowed to modify/revise Form GST TRAN-1 due to unintentional errors in claiming input tax credit under the GST regime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous decisions and legal provisions to conclude that the petitioner should not be precluded from having its claim examined by the authorities due to inadvertent human error.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to open the online portal for the petitioner to re-file the rectified TRAN-1 form electronically or accept the same manually with corrections within three weeks.
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Narula, J. - [Via VIDEO CONFERENCING.
CM APPL. 33850/2020 (for exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 10795/2020
3. Respondents have not filed a counter affidavit despite opportunity granted to them. Today, Mr. Farman Ali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents seeks further time for doing so. However, having regard to the nature of controversy arising in the present petition, need is not felt to grant further time to the respondents to file the counter affidavit. Further, we may also note that in several other matters comprising of a batch, counter-affidavits had not been filed, and the coordinate Bench of this court, to which one of us (Sanjeev Narula J.) is a member, has already heard the arguments and reserved the judgment. Accordingly we are proceeding to decide the present petition on the basis of the available record and the submissions made by the counsels.
4. By way of the present petition, directions are sought to allow the petitioner to modify/revise Form GST TRAN-1 filed by it, either by opening the GST portal or by permitting submission of manual modified/rectified Form.
5. Briefly stated, the Petitioner is set up as a not-for-profit company under Section 25 of the Companies Act, having its registered office in Delhi, for peering of internet service providers amongst themselves and for routing the domestic traffic within India. The Petitioner was earlier registered as a service provider under the Finance Act, 1994 and availed the CENVAT credit of Central Excise Duty, Service Tax etc. paid on input services, procured for providing output services and was discharging its output tax liability by utilizing the said credit.
6. With the advent of the GST laws, the Petitioner migrated to the new regime and got registered under the CGST Act in the State of Delhi. Petitioner also availed the benefit of the transitional provisions and sought to migrate the CENVAT credit of Rs. 60,21,471/- by filing the prescribed Form TRAN-1 on 1st September, 2017, within the time prescribed under Rule 117 of the CGST Rules, 2017. It is the case of the Petitioner that due to unintentional and inadvertent error on its part, they failed to take into account certain invoices pertaining to inputs and/or input services on which service tax was paid under the erstwhile service tax regime. Realising this mistake in March, 2019, Petitioner approached Respondent No. 3 by way of a letter dated 29th March, 2019 requesting for the revision of the Form. Subsequently, the Petitioner also approached the Chief Executive Officer of Respondent No. 4 making a similar request vide letter dated 29th November, 2019. However, despite the above-noted and other representations given by the Petitioner, the Respondents took no action. Left with no other option, the petitioner has now approached this Court.
7. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that issue involved in the present case is covered by several decisions of this Court, and in particular the judgments rendered in Blue Bird Pure Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.,2019 SCCOnLineDel 9250; Arvind Beauty Brands Retail Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., [W.P.(C.) No. 4556/2019 dated 7th August, 2019]; A B Pal Electricals Pvt ltd v. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C.) No. 6537/2019 dated 17th December, 2019]; SRC Aviation (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors., [W.P.(C.) No. 12167/2019 dated 17th December, 2019]; and Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI,2019 SCCOnLineP&H 5701.
8. On perusal of the record, it emerges that Petitioner has filed TRAN-1 form within the time prescribed by the Respondents under the rules. Petitioner is holding documents evidencing payment of tax by it on such inputs / input services received under the erstwhile tax regime. It is thus eligible to carry forward the credit from erstwhile tax regime to the GST regime under Section 140 of the CGST Act read with Rule 117 of CGST Rules. Petitioner cl
Inadvertent human errors in claiming input tax credit under the GST regime should not preclude a petitioner from having its claim examined by the authorities in accordance with law.
Court recognized the necessity for allowing rectification of bona fide errors in GST filings, affirming that claims should not be denied due to inadvertent mistakes.
The period prescribed under Rule 117 of the Rules for filing the TRAN-1 Form was merely directory and not mandatory.
Inadvertent errors in GST form filings should not prevent taxpayers from claiming transitional input tax credit, ensuring equitable access to rights under GST regulations.
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.
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....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of the GST Act allow for rectification of inadvertent errors in GST returns when there is no loss of revenue to the government,....
The entitlement to Input Tax Credit cannot be denied on account of procedural problems and technical glitches.
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.