Union Of INDIA vs. M/S Shriprop Projects Private Limited

Held

The Court held that the reasoning of the learned Single Judge and the relief granted in similar matters did not warrant interference, except for extending the time for filing/revising TRAN-1. The Division Bench, in WA No.18/2020 and connected matters, had relied on judgments like Adfert Technologies and Krish Automotors Pvt. Ltd. to grant relief to assessees by allowing them another opportunity to file or revise TRAN-1. While the initial deadline for filing TRAN-1 had expired even after successive extensions up to 30.08.2020, the Court permitted the respondents-assessees to file/revise TRAN-1 either electronically or manually on or before 31.03.2021. The revenue was granted liberty to verify the genuineness and merits of the claims. In the present appeal, the Court dismissed the writ appeal and granted the respondent-assessee 30 days from the date of the order to submit GST TRAN-1. The ratio is that in cases of genuine difficulty or where the intent is to allow the benefit of CENVAT credit earned under the erstwhile tax regime, the High Court can direct the revenue to accept revised TRAN-1 forms even beyond the statutory deadlines, provided the revenue is given liberty to verify the claims.

Facts

The respondent, M/s. Shraprop Projects Private Limited, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the appellants (Union of India and others) to extend the time limit for revising Form GST TRAN-1 and to accept the revised form. The appellants are challenging an order dated 10.03.2021 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P. No.4241/2021. The issue is similar to several other cases previously adjudicated by a Division Bench of this Court in WA No.18/2020 and connected matters. The Division Bench had considered the historical perspective of Rule 117 of the GST Rules, including amendments and extensions granted for filing TRAN-1, and the use of powers under Section 168A of the Act. The respondent's original writ petition sought an extension for filing/revising TRAN-1.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessees should be granted an opportunity to file or revise Form GST TRAN-1, either electronically or manually, beyond the stipulated deadlines, considering the amendments and extensions to Rule 117 of the GST Rules and the powers exercised under Section 168A of the Act. Petitioner's arguments (Revenue): The revenue argued that in a specific case (Writ Appeal No.56 of 2020), the assessee had filed TRAN-1 and revised TRAN-1 within the time limits but failed to claim CENVAT credit. They contended that this was not a case of belated filing or technical difficulty, and therefore, no fresh opportunity should be granted. They argued the learned Single Judge ought to have dismissed the writ petition in this instance. Respondent's arguments (Assessee): The respondent sought a direction to extend the time for revising Form GST TRAN-1 and to accept the revised form, based on previous judgments that allowed such extensions, citing the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision in Adfert Technologies and the Delhi High Court's decision in Krish Automotors Pvt. Ltd. They relied on the historical context of Rule 117 and the amendments made to extend the filing period.