Inadvertent errors in GST form filings should not prevent taxpayers from claiming transitional input tax credit, ensuring equitable access to rights under GST regulations.

JUDGMENT

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

Sanjeev Narula, J.

CM APPL. 14908/2020 (for exemption)

1. Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 4143/2020

3. The present petition was heard on 21st December, 2020 along with other batch matters relating to difficulties faced by taxpayers in filing form GST TRAN-1 (hereinafter "TRAN-1 Form"). However, considering that the issue involved in the present petition is slightly different as compared to the other batch matters, it is being decided separately by way of this judgment.

4. The Petitioner-R.R. Distributors Private Limited, is engaged in the trading of paper and other like goods. It migrated from the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 into the GST regime, and as on the appointed date under the GST laws, it had a closing stock of finished goods of Rs.7,44,41,433/- on which it was entitled to claim transitional input tax credit (hereinafter "ITC") in terms of Section 140(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter "the Act"). Accordingly, on 22nd November, 2017, the petitioner filed the statutory TRAN-1 Form for transitioning ITC of Value Added Tax (hereinafter "VAT") of Rs.23,57,203/- under the DGST Act, 2017. On 27th December, 2017, an additional claim of State tax of Rs.59,433/- was made and transitional ITC of Rs.52,166/- was claimed under the Act. For claiming the ITC on the stock of Rs.7,44,41,433/-, Petitioner filed TRAN-2 Form for which no date had been specified under Rule 117(4)(b)(iii) of the CGST Rules, 2017 (hereinafter "the Rules"). On 4th January, 2018, the Petitioner attempted to file the TRAN-2 Form for availing the transitional credit amounting to Rs.17,35,293/- on the above stock under the proviso to Section 140(3) of the Act read with Rule 117(4) of the Rules. However, it was not allowed on account of the following reasoning:

a) "you have not declared anything in Part 7B of table 7(a) of TRAN-1, so you are not permitted to fill any details in table 4 of TRAN-2.

b) you have not declared anything in table 7(d) of TRAN-1, so you are not permitted to fill any details in table 5 of TRAN-2"

5. On the same date, the Petitioner informed GSTN about the non-acceptance of TRAN-2 Form via email, however, no response has been received till date.

6. Mr. Rajesh Jain, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that when the TRAN-1 Form was filed online, the facility to upload TRAN-2 Form was not available on the common portal. In these circumstances, the Petitioner was advised by his consultant that since its claim fell under proviso to sub-Section 140(3) of the Act, it needed to file the TRAN-2 Form as per Rule 117(4) of the Rules. Unlike Rule 117(1) which prescribed the initial time period of 90 days with further extensions by the Commissioner on the recommendation of the GST Council, initially no time period was specified for Rule 117(4)(b)(iii). Later, by way of Notification No.12/2018-CT dated 7th March, 2018, sub-Clause (iii) was amended, and the registered person was required to file a statement by 31st March, 2018. Mr. Jain submits that TRAN-2 Form was still not available on the portal and the Courts have taken a judicial notice of this fact, as evident by the judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of M/s Subhas & Company v. Commissioner of CGST and CX, Kolkata North Commissionerate & Ors., 2020(39) G.S.T.L. 129.

7. Mr. Jain further submitted that the respondents are not permitting the Petitioner to upload TRAN-2 Form on account of an inadvertent error committed by it in filing TRAN-1 Form, since it was not able to show the available stock of goods as on 30th June, 2017 in part 7B of tabl