Amba Industrial Corporation vs. Union Of INDIA And Another
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.*. While not declaring Rule 117(1A) ultra vires, the Court found that the Petitioner was entitled to carry forward the 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, as understood by them, 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 amount to a violation of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution. The Court directed the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to upload TRAN-I on or before 30.06.2020. If the Respondents failed to do so, the Petitioner would be at liberty to avail the ITC in GSTR-3B of July 2020. The Respondents were granted liberty to verify the genuineness of the Petitioner's claim.
Facts
The Petitioner, Amba Industrial Corporation, challenged the vires of Rule 117(1A) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017, and sought permission to electronically upload form TRAN-I or avail input tax credit (ITC) in their monthly return GSTR-3B. The Petitioner, a partnership firm trading in S.S. Flats, was registered under the Central Excise Act, 1944, prior to GST implementation, and had paid excise duty amounting to Rs. 10,36,201/-. They were required to upload TRAN-I to carry forward unutilized CENVAT credit as per Section 140 of the CGST Act read with Rule 117(1), but failed to do so by the last date of 27.12.2017. The Respondents had extended the date for filing TRAN-I to 31.03.2020 under Rule 117(1A) due to technical difficulties.
Key Issues
1. Whether Rule 117(1A) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017, is ultra vires the Constitution of India, specifically Articles 14 and 300A, by arbitrarily restricting the extension of time for filing TRAN-I only to cases of "technical difficulties on the common portal"? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued that the issue is 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. and others vs. Union of India*, where similar petitions were allowed, permitting taxpayers to file TRAN-I. They contended that the denial of unutilized credit to dealers unable to furnish evidence of attempting to upload TRAN-I violates Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution. They relied on the Delhi High Court's reasoning that the term "technical difficulty" is broad and should not be narrowly interpreted, and that the government cannot adopt different standards for itself and taxpayers. Respondents' Arguments: The Respondents, represented by the Additional Solicitor General and Senior Standing Counsel, accepted notice and were unable to controvert the fact that the issue was covered by the cited judgments.
Sections Cited
Section 140, Rule 117, Rule 117(1A)
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 Amba Industrial Corporation. ......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. *** 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 partnership firm, engaged in the business of trading of S.S. Flats, 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 Central Excise Act, 1944 as a dealer/trader. The Petitioner purchased S.S. Flats and Scrap on payment of Excise Duty amounting to VINAY MAHAJAN 2020.06.18 18:43 I att
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.