M/S Haryana Petro Oils vs. Union Of INDIA And Others
Held
The Court held that while it would not declare Rule 117(1A) ultra vires, the petitioner was entitled to carry forward the CENVAT credit accrued under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court noted that the respondents had repeatedly extended the last date for filing TRAN-I in cases of technical glitches, as per their understanding. This vindicated the petitioner's claim that denying unutilized credit to those unable to furnish evidence of attempting to upload TRAN-I would violate Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution. Relying on the judgments in *Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd.* and *Brand Equity Treaties Ltd.*, the Court allowed the petition. The respondents were directed to permit the petitioner to upload TRAN-I on or before June 30, 2020. If the respondents failed to do so, the petitioner was granted liberty to avail the ITC in question in GSTR-3B for July 2020. The respondents were also given liberty to verify the genuineness of the petitioner's claims.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Haryana Petro Oils, a partnership firm engaged in refining black oil, challenged the vires of Rule 117(1A) of the Haryana GST Rules, 2017. The petitioner sought permission to electronically upload Form TRAN-I to claim credit for excess VAT reflected in its pre-GST returns. Due to alleged technical glitches on the GST portal, the petitioner could not file Form TRAN-I by the original due date of December 31, 2017. The respondents had extended the last date for filing TRAN-I to March 31, 2020, under Rule 117(1A) for registered persons facing technical difficulties. The petitioner argued that this rule, and its application, prevented them from availing their legitimate credit.
Key Issues
1. Whether Rule 117(1A) of the Haryana GST Rules, 2017, is ultra vires the Constitution of India, specifically Articles 14 and 300A, by arbitrarily restricting the extension of time for filing Form TRAN-I only to cases of technical difficulties on the common portal? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the issue was covered by previous judgments of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in *Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India* and the Delhi High Court in *Brand Equity Treaties Ltd. vs. Union of India* and *SKH Sheet Metals Components vs. Union of India*. They argued that the government cannot adopt different standards for itself and taxpayers and that the narrow interpretation of "technical difficulty" by the respondents is unreasonable and discriminatory. They also asserted that CENVAT credit is a vested property right under Article 300A, which cannot be taken away by delegated legislation without an overarching provision in the Act. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents, represented by Sr. Standing Counsel and Addl. AG Haryana, were unable to controvert the petitioner's submissions and conceded that the issue was covered by the cited judgments.
Sections Cited
Rule 117(1A), Rule 117
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
CWP No.8361/2020 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.8361 of 2020(O&M) Date of Decision:-19.06.2020 M/s Haryana Petro Oils ......Petitioner. Versus Union of India and others ......Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANT PARKASH Present:- Mr. Sandeep Goyal,Advocate for the petitioner. *** JASWANT SINGH, J. Hearing conducted through Video Conferencing.
The Petitioner through instant petition is challenging vires of Rule 117(1A) of Haryana GST Rules, 2017 (for short ‘Rules’) and seeking direction to Respondent to permit Petitioner to electronically upload form TRAN-I in order to avail credit of excess VAT reflected in Returns, as due to technical glitches on the GST Portal, the petitioner could not file Form TRAN-I.
The Petitioner-a partnership firm, engaged in the business of refining of black oil, is registered with Respondent-GST Authorities under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘CGST Act’). The Petitioner prior to 01.07.2017 i.e. date of introduction of GST was registered under Haryana VAT Act,2003. The` Petitioner was entitled to RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI 2020.06.19 13:39 I attest to the ac
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.