M/S Jyoti Medical Hall vs. Asst. Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court held that the issue raised in the writ petition is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. In that decision, the Supreme Court had directed the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) to open the common portal for filing concerned forms for availing Transitional Credit through TRAN-I and TRAN-2 for a specified period, which was extended. GSTN was also directed to ensure no technical glitches and concerned officials were given time to verify claims and pass appropriate orders. The allowed transitional credit was to be reflected in the Electronic Credit Ledger. Consequently, the present Writ Petition was disposed of in the same terms, with no order as to costs.

Facts

M/s Jyoti Medical Hall (the petitioner) filed a writ petition seeking directions to allow them to file declaration in Form GST TRAN-I to claim transitional relief for sales tax, central sales tax, and central excise duty on closing stock held as on the appointed day. The petitioner also sought directions to open the common portal for filing TRAN-I electronically or to accept it manually. They further prayed for a declaration that the time limit specified in Rule 117(1) and (1A) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017, for filing TRAN-I is ultra vires Section 140(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, and arbitrary. The petition also challenged the constitutional validity of Section 164 of the CGST Act, 2017, for excessive delegation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be allowed to file Form GST TRAN-I to claim transitional relief under Section 140(3) of the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? (Question of law) 2. Whether the time limit prescribed under Rule 117(1) and (1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017, for claiming transitional credit is directory and not mandatory, and thus ultra vires Section 140(3) of the CGST Act, 2017? (Question of law) 3. Whether Section 164 of the CGST Act, 2017, is unconstitutional due to excessive delegation? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that they should be allowed to file TRAN-I to claim transitional relief. They contended that the time limit for filing TRAN-I is procedural and directory, not mandatory, and that the prescribed time limit is arbitrary and violates Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution of India. They also argued that Section 164 of the CGST Act suffers from excessive delegation and is unconstitutional. Respondents' arguments: The respondents did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. However, the Court noted that the issue was covered by a Supreme Court decision.