M/S. Sri Venkatesh Paper Overseas vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petitions in terms of a previous decision rendered by the same Court in W.P. Nos. 15082 of 2018 and batch, decided on 08.08.2022 (M/s PKL Limited v. Union of India). While the specific findings of the PKL Limited judgment are not detailed in this extract, the common order indicates that the present petitions were decided based on that precedent. The reasoning likely involved the Court's stance on the technical issues faced by taxpayers in filing transitional credit forms and the availability of remedies. The operative direction was to dispose of these writ petitions in accordance with the aforementioned judgment, implying that the relief granted or denied would align with the PKL Limited decision. No costs were imposed.

Facts

Multiple petitioners, including M/s. IChoice Marketing, M/s. Arvind Lifestyle Brands Ltd., M/s. Shweta Computers and Peripherals, M/s. S.V. Paper Corporation, M/s. Sri Venkatesh Paper Overseas, and M/s. Athena Global Technologies Limited, filed writ petitions before the Telangana High Court. The core issue revolved around the inability of these petitioners to file or rectify their GST TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms on the common portal, leading to the denial of transitional credit. The petitioners sought directions to the GST authorities to accept these forms manually or to reopen the portal for electronic filing, thereby allowing them to claim input tax credit amounting to significant sums, such as Rs. 3,75,740 for IChoice Marketing, Rs. 21,39,543 for Arvind Lifestyle Brands Ltd., Rs. 1,07,19,626 for Shweta Computers and Peripherals, and Rs. 47,88,149 for Athena Global Technologies Limited. The petitions were filed between 2019 and 2021.

Key Issues

1. Whether the GST authorities can be directed to accept the filing of Form GST TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 manually or to reopen the electronic portal for rectification/filing, considering the technical difficulties faced by the petitioners and the amounts of transitional credit claimed (ranging from Rs. 3,75,740 to Rs. 1,07,19,626)? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 140 of the CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 117 of the CGST Rules, 2017). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that they were unable to file or rectify their TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms due to technical glitches on the GST portal, which were beyond their control. They argued that the time limits prescribed for filing these forms under Rule 117 were procedural and directory, not mandatory, and that denying them the transitional credit would be arbitrary and violative of their constitutional rights, including Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265. They relied on precedents like Scott Edil Pharmacia Limited (2018 SCC Online HP 1809) for the principle that an aggrieved party should not be left without a remedy. Some petitioners also argued that Section 164 of the CGST Act, 2017, suffered from excessive delegation. Revenue's arguments: The respondents (Union of India, GST Council, State of Telangana, and various GST authorities) did not present specific arguments in the provided text, but their role was to defend the existing procedures and time limits for filing GST forms.