Apollo Screens PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that it found no reason to interfere with the respondents' action. While acknowledging that some High Courts have addressed genuine difficulties in uploading returns due to technical errors, the Court emphasized that the facts of each case must be minutely examined. The Court found that there was insufficient evidence on record to suggest that the petitioner made multiple genuine attempts to file the returns between July 1, 2017, and December 27, 2017. The Court noted that the normal conduct in case of failed attempts would be to approach the Nodal Officer or grievance cell during the currency of the time limit. The petitioner's first official written communication was dated April 27, 2018, four months after the deadline. In the absence of any material suggesting a genuine, honest attempt to file the return electronically which failed due to technical errors attributable to the department, the Court concluded that it would not be possible to extend the time limit for the petitioner. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Apollo Screens Pvt Ltd, a manufacturing company, had CENVAT credit of approximately Rs. 8.80 lakhs as of June 30, 2017. Section 140 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and Rule 117 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017, provided for the transfer of such credit, with a time limit for filing declarations. This time limit was extended, with the last extension being until December 27, 2017. The petitioner admittedly failed to file the required electronic return by this date. The petitioner's first written communication to the department, dated April 27, 2018, claimed portal errors prevented filing, and they believed these would be resolved. The petitioner also admitted not maintaining any screenshots of attempted uploads. The department responded on May 3, 2018, stating no provision existed for physical returns and that the petitioner had not contacted them during the permitted period to report e-filing difficulties.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to carry forward their CENVAT credit balance of Rs. 8.80 lakhs as on June 30, 2017, despite failing to file the requisite electronic declaration within the extended time limit of December 27, 2017, as mandated by Section 140 and Rule 117 of the CGST Act and Rules, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they were unable to file the necessary declarations due to portal errors and were under the bona fide belief that these issues would be resolved. They relied on the principle that genuine difficulties in uploading returns due to technical errors should be considered by High Courts, as some courts have done. Revenue's contention: The Revenue contended that there is no provision for filing physical returns and that the petitioner did not contact the department during the permitted time limit to report difficulties in e-filing. They argued that accepting a bald declaration without evidence of genuine attempts would amount to extending the time limit, leading to chaotic results.