M/S. Shree Santosh Marketing PVT. LTD. vs. Asst. Commissioner (St)Osmangunj Circle And 6 Others

Held

The High Court held that these writ petitions are covered by 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 excerpt, the current order indicates that the present petitions were disposed of in terms of that precedent. This implies that the Court likely followed its earlier reasoning regarding the procedural aspects of filing transitional credit forms, the role of technical glitches, and the extent of relief that could be granted to taxpayers. The ratio decidendi would be that the principles laid down in M/s PKL Limited are applicable to the facts of these cases. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petitions in terms of the cited judgment, without costs.

Facts

Multiple writ petitions were filed before the Telangana High Court by various entities, 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. The petitioners sought directions to the GST authorities to accept their claims for transitional credit, either manually or by reopening the online portal, due to technical glitches or errors in filing Form GST TRAN-1 and TRAN-2. The amounts in dispute varied, with specific figures mentioned for some petitioners, such as Rs. 3,75,740/- for M/s. IChoice Marketing and Rs. 21,39,543/- for M/s. Arvind Lifestyle Brands Ltd. The procedural history involves representations made by the petitioners to the GST authorities and the subsequent filing of these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Key Issues

1. Whether the GST authorities should be directed to accept the amended/rectified Form GST TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 manually or by reopening the electronic portal to allow the petitioners to claim input tax credit, considering the technical difficulties faced in filing these forms electronically. (Relates to Section 140 and Rule 117 of the CGST Act/Rules). 2. Whether the time limit prescribed for filing Form GST TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 under Rule 117 of the CGST Rules, 2017, is procedural and directory, or mandatory, and if it can be extended by the authorities or the Court. (Relates to Rule 117). 3. Whether the inaction of the respondents in considering the petitioners' representations for carry forward of CENVAT credit due to technical problems in e-filing is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (Relates to Article 14 of the Constitution). Petitioner's arguments generally centered on the technical glitches preventing timely and accurate filing of transitional credit forms, leading to a denial of legitimate credit. They argued for a direction to the authorities to allow manual filing or reopen the portal. Some petitioners also contended that the time limits were procedural and directory, and that Section 164 of the CGST Act suffered from excessive delegation. Respondents' arguments were not explicitly detailed in the provided text, but their role as the tax authorities implies a defense based on adherence to statutory provisions and rules, including the prescribed timelines for filing transitional credit forms.