M/S. Baril Marketing PVT. LTD. vs. The Union Of INDIA And 5 Ors.

Held

The Court held that if a provision exists for electronic filing of returns and uploading could not be done in time due to technical glitches, the concerned individual or firm should not be put at a disadvantage. The Court noted that the petitioner was ready to file TRAN-2 electronically but could not due to portal issues, leading them to seek manual submission, which was previously considered by the Court. The Court acknowledged the respondents' affidavit-in-opposition mentioning that the GST Council was apprised of the situation. Therefore, the Court directed that the GST Council (respondent No. 5) would examine the petitioner's grievance and allow them to file the return either electronically or manually, as they decide, to prevent the petitioner from being deprived of their due input tax credit. This exercise was to be completed within three weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Baril Marketing Pvt. Ltd., approached the Gauhati High Court challenging the Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Assam's refusal to allow the submission of GST TRAN-2 return, specifically Part 7A, either electronically or manually. This followed a previous writ petition (WP(C) No. 4901/2018) where the Court had directed the authorities to facilitate the submission of this return, either electronically or manually, due to alleged portal glitches. The petitioner contended that the authorities' current refusal, citing lack of proof of genuine difficulty or negligence, would deprive them of input tax credit. The respondents argued, based on instructions, that the petitioner did not submit information correctly in TRAN-1 and failed to revise it within the stipulated time, and that allowing manual declarations due to technical glitches might not align with the current GST statutory framework.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be allowed to submit the GST TRAN-2 return (Part 7A) electronically or manually, despite the respondents' contention that the petitioner failed to prove genuine difficulty or negligence in uploading the form, and that allowing manual filing due to technical glitches might contravene the statutory framework? (Section 140 of the CGST Act, 2017 and relevant rules concerning transitional provisions and input tax credit). Petitioner's Arguments: - The petitioner argued that proving specific instances of technical glitches and lack of negligence would be impossible. - They contended that the refusal to accept the TRAN-2 form would result in the loss of eligible input tax credit. - They relied on the previous order of the High Court directing the authorities to facilitate the submission of the form either electronically or manually. Respondents' Arguments: - The respondents stated that the petitioner did not submit information correctly in TRAN-1 and did not revise it within the stipulated time. - They cited a letter from the Board indicating that re-opening the portal or allowing manual declarations due to technical glitches might not be in consonance with the current statutory framework of GST law. - They asserted that the Commissioner had forwarded the matter to higher authorities for consideration of amendment in TRAN-1.