C.P.Marble vs. Union Of INDIA And Others
Held
The Court held that the issue was squarely covered by previous judgments of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in *Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd.* and the Delhi High Court in *Brand Equity Treaties Ltd.* and *SKH Sheet Metals Components*. While not declaring Rule 117(1A) ultra vires, the Court found that the Petitioner was entitled to carry forward their VAT credit. The Court reasoned that repeated extensions granted by the Respondents for filing TRAN-I due to technical glitches vindicated the Petitioner's claim that denial of unutilized credit to those unable to furnish evidence of attempting to upload TRAN-I would amount to a violation of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution. The Court directed the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to upload Form TRAN-I on or before June 30, 2020. If the Respondents failed to do so, the Petitioner was permitted to avail the ITC in GSTR-3B of July 2020. The Respondents were granted liberty to verify the genuineness of the Petitioner's claims.
Facts
The Petitioner, C.P. Marble, challenged Rule 117(1A) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017, and sought permission to upload Form TRAN-I or avail input tax credit (ITC) in their GSTR-3B return. The Petitioner, a dealer registered under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005, had unutilized VAT credit. They failed to upload Form TRAN-I by the initial due date of December 27, 2017. The Respondents had extended the date for filing TRAN-I to March 31, 2020, under Rule 117(1A) for those facing technical difficulties. The Petitioner argued that the issue was covered by previous High Court judgments, and the Respondents acknowledged this.
Key Issues
1. Whether Rule 117(1A) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017, is ultra vires the Constitution, specifically Articles 14 and 300A, by arbitrarily restricting the extension of time for filing Form TRAN-I? 2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to carry forward their unutilized VAT credit accrued under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005, by filing Form TRAN-I or availing ITC in GSTR-3B? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner contended that the issue was squarely covered by the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision in *Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India* and the Delhi High Court's decisions in *Brand Equity Treaties Ltd. vs. Union of India* and *SKH Sheet Metals Components vs. Union of India*. They argued that these judgments permitted taxpayers to file TRAN-I beyond the prescribed dates due to technical difficulties and that the Respondents could not adopt different standards for themselves and taxpayers. Revenue's Arguments: The Respondents, represented by their counsel, were unable to controvert the Petitioner's submissions that the issue was covered by the aforementioned judgments.
Sections Cited
Rule 117(1A), Section 140
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
#1# IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Date of Decision:-18.06.2020 C.P. Marble through its Proprietor Rajneesh Kumar. ......Petitioner. Versus Union of India & Anr. ......Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANT PARKASH Present:- Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate for Respondent No.
Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Punjab- Respondent Nos.2 & 3. *** JASWANT SINGH, J. Hearing conducted through Video Conferencing.
The Petitioner through instant petition is challenging vires of Rule 117(1A) of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘Rules’) and seeking direction to Respondent to permit Petitioner to electronically upload form TRAN-I or avail input tax credit (for short ‘ITC’) in monthly return GSTR-3B.
The Petitioner-a proprietary concern, is engaged in the trading of Marble Stone and 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 VINAY MAHAJAN 2020.06.18 18:43 I a
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.