M/S Indwell Constructions Private Limited vs. The Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).32709-32710/2018. The Supreme Court had directed the Goods and Service Tax Network (GSTN) to open a common portal for filing concerned forms for availing Transitional Credit through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 for two months, from September 1, 2022, to October 31, 2022. Aggrieved registered assessees were directed to file or revise their forms irrespective of whether they had filed a writ petition or if their case was decided by the ITGRC. GSTN was to ensure no technical glitches. Concerned officers were given 90 days thereafter to verify claims and pass orders after granting an opportunity to parties. Allowed transitional credit was to be reflected in the Electronic Credit Ledger. The Supreme Court had also extended the time for opening the portal by four weeks on September 2, 2022, due to the portal not being opened by the department. Consequently, the time for filing forms was extended.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Indwell Constructions Private Limited, filed a writ petition seeking to quash a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated April 5, 2021, and to allow them the benefit of credit carried forward or to file a revised GST TRAN-1 declaration. They also sought to transfer transitioned credit from an ISD registration to their main registration, and to declare certain provisions of the Finance Act, 2020, and CGST Rules, 2017, as unconstitutional, arbitrary, and discriminatory. The petitioner's GSTIN is 37AAAI4781P1ZY. The matter was common ground that similar issues had been decided by various High Courts and subsequently went to the Supreme Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of credit already carried forward or to file a revised GST TRAN-1 declaration, and to have transitioned credit transferred from their ISD registration to their main registration (GSTIN 37AAA14781P1ZY)? 2. Whether Section 128 of the Finance Act, 2020, is unconstitutional? 3. Whether Rule 117 of the CGST Rules, 2017, which prescribes a time limit, is beyond the scope of Section 140(1) of the CGST Act, 2017? 4. Whether Rule 120A of the CGST Rules, 2017, in so far as it prescribes a time limit to revise GST TRAN-1, is arbitrary and discriminatory? 5. Whether Circular 39/13/2018-GST dated April 3, 2018, issued by the fourth respondent, is discriminatory, arbitrary, illegal, and hit by Articles 14, 19, and 300A of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner sought various reliefs including quashing the SCN, allowing them to file revised TRAN-1, directing the transfer of credit, and declaring certain statutory provisions and circulars unconstitutional, arbitrary, and discriminatory. The petitioner relied on the fact that similar issues were decided by other High Courts and reached the Supreme Court. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the respondents. However, the proceedings indicate that the respondents are the Additional Commissioner of Central Tax and others.