M/S Shiv Shakti Udhyog vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Held

The Court held that the issue was squarely covered by its own judgment in *Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India* and the Delhi High Court's judgments in *Brand Equity Treaties Ltd. and others vs. Union of India* and *SKH Sheet Metals Components vs. Union of India*. While not declaring Rule 117(1A) ultra vires, the Court found that the petitioner was entitled to carry forward CENVAT credit accrued under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The repeated extensions granted by the respondents for filing TRAN-I in cases of technical glitches vindicated the petitioner's claim. The Court reasoned that denying unutilized credit to dealers unable to furnish evidence of attempting to upload TRAN-I would violate Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution. The Court directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to upload TRAN-I on or before June 30, 2020. If the respondents failed to do so, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail the ITC in question in GSTR-3B of July 2020. The respondents were granted liberty to verify the genuineness of the petitioner's claims.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shiv Shakti Udhyog, challenged the vires of Rule 117(1A) of the Haryana GST Rules, 2017, and sought permission to electronically upload Form TRAN-I to claim credit for excess VAT. The petitioner, engaged in cotton seed processing, was registered under the Punjab VAT Act, 2005, prior to GST implementation on July 1, 2017. They were entitled to claim credit for VAT on inputs held in stock by furnishing Form TRAN-I. However, the petitioner failed to upload TRAN-I by the due date of December 31, 2017. Rule 117(1A) allows the Commissioner to extend the date for submitting the declaration in cases of technical difficulties, and the respondents had extended this date to March 31, 2020. The petitioner argued that due to technical glitches on the GST portal, they could not file TRAN-I.

Key Issues

1. Whether Rule 117(1A) of the Haryana GST Rules, 2017, is ultra vires the Constitution, specifically Article 14, due to being arbitrary, discriminatory, and unreasonable in its interpretation of 'technical difficulties'? (Question of law) 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to avail credit of excess VAT reflected in their returns by filing Form TRAN-I, despite missing the original due date, due to technical glitches on the GST portal? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the issue is covered by the High Court's judgment in *Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India* and the Delhi High Court's decisions in *Brand Equity Treaties Ltd. and others vs. Union of India* and *SKH Sheet Metals Components vs. Union of India*. They contended that these judgments permitted taxpayers to file TRAN-I, even after the due date, due to technical difficulties, and that the government cannot adopt different standards for itself and taxpayers. They also relied on the principle that accrued CENVAT credit is a vested property right under Article 300A of the Constitution. Respondents' Contentions: The respondents, represented by their counsel, were unable to controvert the fact that the issue was covered by the cited judgments.