M/S R.R. Mineral vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the challenge to the constitutional validity of Rule 117 of the CGST Rules was no longer res integra, referencing previous judgments by the Gujarat High Court in Willowood Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and a co-ordinate bench of this Court in M/s Anupam Motors Vs. Union of India. Consequently, the Court rejected the prayer to declare Rule 117 unconstitutional or to read it down as having no last date for filing TRANS-1. However, considering that the Union of India had extended the period for submitting GST TRAN-1 until December 31, 2019, the Court granted liberty to the petitioners. They were directed to make an application before the GST Council through the Standing Counsel, who was requested to forward it to the jurisdictional officer. This officer would then forward it to the GST Council for issuing a requisite certificate of recommendation. If the petitioners' assertions were found correct, the GST Council was to issue a necessary recommendation to the Commissioner, enabling the petitioners to avail CENVAT credit within the stipulated time of December 31, 2019. The writ petitions were disposed of in terms of these directions.

Facts

These writ petitions were filed by various entities, including Trivedi Ventures LLP, M/s Ceramic Tableware Private Limited, SRF Limited, Biogenetic Drugs Private Limited, M/s Pyramid Abrasives Pvt. Ltd., Viraya Steels Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Anusika Industries Limited, M/s Rays Power Experts Private Limited, M/s Agarwal Brothers, M/s. SRK Solenergi Private Limited, and M/s. Universal Cylinders Limited. The petitioners sought permission to file Form TRAN-1 to avail transitional credit under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. Some petitioners also challenged the validity of Rule 117 of the CGST Rules. The core issue was the inability to file the form within the prescribed timelines to claim eligible input tax credit. The respondents included the Union of India, the GST Council, Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN), and various GST Commissioners and officers.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners should be permitted to file Form TRAN-1 to avail transitional credit under the CGST Act and Rules, despite missing the prescribed deadlines? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 140 of the CGST Act and Rule 117 of the CGST Rules). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners contended that they should be allowed to file Form TRAN-1 to claim transitional credit. They argued that the respondents should give effect to manually submitted Forms GST TRAN-1 to enable them to avail legitimate input tax credit. In some petitions, the validity of Rule 117 of the CGST Rules was challenged. Revenue's Arguments: The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that similar writ petitions had been disposed of by a co-ordinate Division Bench of the Court in the case of Obelisk Composite Technology LLP Vs. Union of India & Others, and therefore, the present petitions should be disposed of in terms of that order. The judgment also noted that the challenge to Rule 117 of the Rules was no longer res integra in view of decisions by the Gujarat High Court and this Court, and that the Union of India had extended the last date for submitting GST TRAN-1 up to December 31, 2019.