M/S Triveni Needles PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Held

The Court held that there was no good reason to deny the benefit of the judgment in *Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India* to the petitioners. The Court noted that some dealers had already received relief from the Court for filing TRAN-01. The respondents' representatives, Mr. Nimba Ram and Mr. Anish Gupta, appeared and informed the Court that a decision could only be made on the recommendation of the GST Council, and the government lacked the power to act independently. They also confirmed that no Special Leave Petition had been filed against the *Adfert Technologies* judgment. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petitions with a direction permitting the petitioners to file the TRAN-01 Return, either electronically or manually, by January 31, 2020. The Court reasoned that the principle established in the *Adfert Technologies* case, which allowed for the carry forward of legitimate CENVAT/ITC claims despite the non-filing of TRAN-I by the original deadline, should be extended to the present petitioners.

Facts

Multiple petitioners, including M/s Triveni Needles Pvt. Ltd. and Dhruv Cables and Conductors, filed writ petitions before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The petitions initially challenged the vires of Rule 117 of the CGST Rules, 2017 and HGST Rules, 2017, and sought directions to open the portal for uploading Form TRAN-01. During the proceedings, the petitioners withdrew the challenge to the vires of Rule 117. The sole surviving issue was whether the benefit of a previous judgment by the same Court in *Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India* should be extended to these petitioners. The Court had previously directed respondents to permit petitioners to file or revise TRAN-01 forms by November 30, 2019, allowing claims for CENVAT/ITC even if TRAN-I was not filed by the original deadline.

Key Issues

1. Whether Rule 117 of the CGST Rules, 2017 and HGST Rules, 2017 is ultra vires Section 140 of the CGST Act, 2017? (This issue was not pressed by the petitioners). 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the judgment in *Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India*? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners argued that their case is covered by the judgment of this Court in *Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India*, and therefore, they should be permitted to file the TRAN-01 form. They relied on the principle established in that case, which allowed for the filing or revision of TRAN-01 forms beyond the prescribed deadline to carry forward legitimate CENVAT/ITC claims. Revenue's Argument: The respondents, represented by Union of India and others, informed the Court that any decision in this regard could only be taken on the recommendation of the GST Council. They stated that the government was otherwise powerless to take any decision. It was also noted that a Special Leave Petition against the *Adfert Technologies* judgment had not yet been filed.