Indusind Media Communications LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And 5 Others

Held

The Court allowed the present writ petition on the same terms as the judgment passed in Writ Tax No. 477 of 2021 dated 15.09.2021. The reasoning was based on the identical controversy presented in both cases. The Court directed that all petitioners, including the present one, must first file physical Form GST TRAN-1 before their respective jurisdictional authorities within four weeks. The jurisdictional authority would then report on compliances under Section 140 of the CGST Act and Rule 117 of the CGST Rules. If no objections arise, the authority would facilitate electronic submission or revision within two weeks. If objections arise, a limited opportunity would be given to the petitioner to correct the physical form within three weeks, followed by the authority's report. Subsequently, the authority would forward the report and the physical form to the GST Network within one week. The GST Network would then either upload the form itself or allow the petitioner to upload it within two weeks. No form submitted in compliance with this order would be rejected for being filed outside the time limit. The petitioner was directed to make the required compliance within one week from the order date.

Facts

The petitioner, Indusind Media Communications Ltd., filed a writ petition seeking a direction to upload Form GST TRAN-1 within an extended timeline. This issue was identical to that in Writ Tax No. 477 of 2021, which this Court had previously allowed on September 15, 2021. The previous judgment provided a detailed procedure for petitioners to file physical Forms GST TRAN-1/TRAN-2, have their jurisdictional authorities report on compliances under Section 140 of the CGST Act and Rule 117 of the CGST Rules, and subsequently facilitate electronic filing or revision. The present petition was filed seeking similar relief.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to an extended timeline for uploading Form GST TRAN-1, considering the technical difficulties or other reasons that prevented timely electronic filing. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they should be granted an opportunity to file Form GST TRAN-1 electronically, even beyond the prescribed deadline, due to circumstances preventing timely submission. They relied on the principle of equity and the need to avail transitional credit. Respondent's contention: The respondent, Union of India and others, did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's claim in the judgment. However, the implication is that the revenue would typically argue for adherence to statutory timelines for filing such forms.