Sanko Gosei Technology INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.
Held
The Court held that in similar circumstances, it had previously permitted the manual filing of TRAN-1 Forms. The Court directed the respondents to either reopen the online portal to allow the petitioners to file their TRAN-1 Forms electronically or, failing that, to accept the manually filed TRAN-1 Forms by July 31, 2019. The Court further directed that the petitioners' claims, once filed, would be processed in accordance with the law. The reasoning was based on precedent established in Bhargava Motors v. Union of India. The ratio decidendi is that genuine technical difficulties in the GSTN portal that prevent timely filing of mandatory forms like TRAN-1 should not result in the denial of legitimate transitional credits.
Facts
The petitioners, Kusum Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Sanko Gosei Technology India Pvt. Ltd., are registered with the VAT & Excise Department. They are aggrieved by their inability to avail carry-forward credit of eligible duties (CGST and GST) amounting to Rs. 4,85,141/- and Rs. 52,75,218/-, respectively, which they claim were available as of June 30, 2017. The petitioners attribute this failure to glitches in the online system operated by the respondents. This issue arose in the context of transitioning to the Goods and Services Tax regime. The respondents are the Union of India and other relevant authorities.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to carry forward their eligible duties as CGST and GST credit, despite alleged system glitches preventing timely filing of TRAN-1 forms? (Question of law) Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that due to technical issues with the online portal, they were unable to file their TRAN-1 forms to claim the carry-forward credit of eligible duties. They relied on the principle that genuine inability to comply with procedural requirements due to system failures should not prejudice their substantive rights. Respondents: Did not object to the directions proposed by the Court, indicating a concession on their part regarding the petitioners' claim, provided the procedural directions were followed.
Sections Cited
TRAN-1
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Writ. P.etition [Civil].No.. 13^4 h CERTS FICATE X;, 1, "The case is fit for consignment and that no proceedings are pending either in the High Court of Delhi or in the Supreme Court of india/in terms of rules.as provided in Ch-5[C] of the High Court Rules & Orders \lo\ --\l", as no communication has been received in this respect.
It is also certified that all the relevant papers including office not-ing . pertaining to payments and return of FDR/Bank Guarante-eor other documents have been removed from Part 'B.' and have been placed at the end of Part W at pages —7- ten- I AoOoJufV Asrtt. Registrar |Writsl/Dv. Registrar [Writs] LD. No-. jyf
'fY r 'i * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 49&15 + ' W.P.(C) 7423/2019 KUSUM ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. Petitioner Through: Mr Vineet Bhatia, Advocate. versus EINIQN OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through: Mr Satyakam, ASC for GNCTD/R-3. Mr Harish Vaidyanathan, CGSC for UGL + U-^P.(C) 7335/2019 SANKO GOSEI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT. LTD. Petitioner Through: Mr Vineet Bhatia, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through: Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, ' CGSC for R-l/UOI CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE TALWANT S
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.