Purv Flexipack PVT LTD & Anr vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors
Original PDF →Facts
A batch of writ petitions were filed before the High Court challenging actions or orders by GST authorities. The petitioners, including Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd., contended that their input tax credit claims were denied due to technical glitches, connectivity issues, or lack of sensitization with the GST system, preventing timely filing or revision of TRAN-1 returns. The core issue was that a crystallized right to input credit was being denied due to procedural shortcomings beyond the assessees' control. The petitioners relied on previous judgments from the same High Court and the Bombay High Court that addressed similar situations where assessees faced difficulties in filing TRAN-1 forms.
Held
The Court held that the difficulties faced by assessees in filing TRAN-1 returns due to technical glitches or connectivity issues, which prevented them from claiming crystallized input tax credit, should be addressed sympathetically. The Court found that assessees who had substantially complied with the law and were entitled to credit during the transition to the GST regime should not be prejudiced by procedural technicalities. While acknowledging the learned Single Judge's direction to open the portal, the Court considered it potentially unworkable. Instead, following the Punjab and Haryana High Court's approach in "Hans Raj Sons vs. Union of India" and "Amba Industrial Corporation vs. Union of India," the Court directed that petitioners be allowed to file their unutilized credit in their GSTR-3B forms for the month of June 2022, to be filed in July 2022. This option was deemed more assessee-friendly and workable. The genuineness of the claims would be subject to verification by the assessing officers. The Court affirmed that if the cases were found to be similar to the facts in the cited precedents, the claims should be allowed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim input tax credit despite procedural issues in filing TRAN-1 returns, given that their right to credit had crystallized? 2. Whether the directions issued by the learned Single Judge to open the portal for filing TRAN-1 returns were workable and appropriate? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued that their right to input tax credit had vested and should not be denied due to technical glitches or procedural issues beyond their control, citing the principle that substantial compliance should be considered. They relied on the judgments in "Nodal Officer, Jt. Commissioner, IT Grievance, GST Bhawan – Vs – M/s. Das Auto Centre" (14.12.2021), "Principal Commissioner of CGST & CX, Howrah Commissionerate – Vs – Bengal Hammer Industries (P) LTD. & Ors." (27.04.2022), and the Bombay High Court's decision in "Chep India Private Limited – Vs – Union of India & Ors." (27.06.2022). Revenue's arguments: The respondent GST authorities, represented by the Commissioner of State Taxes and CGST authorities, submitted that the facts involved in these writ petitions were not similar to the facts in the cited judgments. However, this submission was noted as being subject to verification by the assessing officers.
Sections Cited
TRAN-1, GSTR-3B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2022
Sl no. 18-25
Ct no. 2
P.M.
W.P.A. 12239 of 2019 With WPA 10104 of 2021 With WPA 5065 of 2020 With With WPA 5627 of 2020 With WPA 5734 of 2020 with CAN 1 of 2020 CAN 3681 of 2020 With WPA 7926 of 2021 With Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. & Anr.
Vs. Commissioner of State Taxes & Ors.
Mr. Vinay Kr. Shraff, Ms. Priya Sarah Paul, Mr. Kaushal Agarwal
……..for the petitioner in WPA 12239 of 2019, WPA 5627 of 2020, WPA 5734 of 2020, WPA 7926 of 2021 and Mr. A. Ray, Ld. G.P. Mr. T. M. Siddiqui, Mr. S. Mukherjee, Mr. D. Ghosh, Mr. N. Chatterjee
………for the State.
Mr. K.K. Maiti, Mr. Bhaskar Prosad Banerjee, Ms. Aishwarya Rajyashree, Mr. Tapan Bhanja
… for CGST authority
2
Mr. Siddhartha Lahiri, Mr. Tapan Bhanja.
………for the UOI. in
WPA 7926 of 2021. Mr. Sanjay Bhaumik, Mr. Indranil Banerjee, Mr. Subrata Mukherjee.
………for the petitioner in
WPA 5065 of 2020. Mr. Sandip Choraria, Mr. R. Chatterjee,
………for the petitioner, in
WPA 10104 of 2021. Ms. Sweta Mukherjee
… for petitioner in Mr. Sujit Mitra
…. for Union of India in Heard learned advocate appearing for the parties. All these writ petitions are heard and disposed of by this common order for similarity of the issues involved in all these writ petitions. According to the petitioner, in these bunch of writ petitions are similar in facts and question of law involved like in a bunch of cases which have been finally decided by the Division Bench of this Court by a judgement dated 14.12.2021 in the case of Nodal Officer, Jt. Commissioner, IT Grievance, GST Bhawan – Vs – M/s. Das Auto Centre being MAT 552
3 of 2020 with CAN 1 of 2020 and CAN 2 of 2020 and another Division Bench judgement of this Court dated 27th April, 2022 in the case of Principal Commissioner of CGST & CX, Howrah Commissionerate – Vs – Bengal Hammer Industries (P) LTD. & Ors. being APOT No. 40 of 2022 with GA 2 of 2022 and WPO 240 of 2019 and petitioner also relies on a recent unreported decision of the Bombay High Court, dated 27th June, 2022 in the case of Chep India Private Limited – Vs – Union of India & Ors. being Writ petition No. 1075 of 2021. In my view relevant portion of the judgement of the appeal Court, dated 14.12.2021 in the case of Nodal Officer, Jt. Commissioner, IT Grievance, GST Bhawan (Supra) are required to be quoted as hereunder : In the bunch of writ petitions the facts may be slightly different in the sense that each of the writ petition may have a peculiar problem but the common feature in all the writ petitions is that on account of a technical glitch or on account of the assesses not being felt sensitized with the system or on account of other connectivity issues or when the assesses/dealers are located in remote corners of the State Form TRAN-1 could not be uploaded in time or in appropriate form.
4 The other common but most important feature in all these cases is the entitlement of the writ petitioners to the input credit has crystallized. This crystallized right, which ripened into the vested right, is now being denied to the writ petitioners on account of procedural problem. In this factual background, we require to examine as to whether the order or direction passed by the learned Single Judge was appropriate or otherwise.
Thus, we are fully convinced that the decision which were rendered above have clearly brought out the difficulties faced by the assesses and also as to how the assesses having substantially complied with the requirement under law and having been entitled to credit on account of transition to the GST regime which is beyond the purview of the assessee and the assessee cannot be put to prejudice on account of technicalities. Thus, keeping the underlying principle in mind if the matter is examined then we are inclined to lean in favour of the writ petitioners and affirm the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. We note from the directions issued by the learned Single Judge that the authorities have been directed to open the portal so that the assessee may be able to file their respective TRAN-1 return or revise return or re-revise
5 2020 (34) GSTL 58 (P & H). In the said decision the Court while allowing the writ petition had granted two options one by directing opening of the portal and in case of non-opening of portal the writ petitioner/assessee will be entitled to make unutilized 195 (P & H).
Considering and following the aforesaid judgements of the Division Bench of this Court as well as Bombay High Court all these writ petitions are disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioners to file individual tax credit in GSTR-3b forms for the month of June, 2022 to be filed in the month of July, 2022 subject to verification of genuineness of the claim of the petitioner in all these cases and respondent GST authorities concerned shall allow the claim of these writ petitioners if it is found that the cases of the writ petitioners are similar to the facts involved in all the aforesaid decisions. Though Mr. Maiti, learned advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the facts involved in these writ petitions are not similar to the facts involved in the aforesaid judgments of the Division Bench of this Court but that will be subject to verification by the assessing officers. With this observation all these writ petitions being W.P.A. 12239 of 2019, WPA 10104 of 2021,
7 WPA 5065 of 2020, WPA 5573 of 2020, WPA 5627 of 2020, WPA 5734 of 2020 with CAN 1 of 2020, CAN 3681 of 2020, WPA 7926 of 2021 and WPA 8985 of 2020 stand disposed of.
(Md. Nizamuddin, J.)
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.