M/S Rajasthan Marble vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 Others

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, following the precedent set in Writ Tax No. 477 of 2021. The Court directed that all petitioners, including M/s Rajasthan Marble, must first file a physical copy of Form GST TRAN-1 before their respective jurisdictional authority within four weeks from the date of the order. The jurisdictional authority is then required to report on the compliances under Section 140 of the CGST Act and Rule 117 of the CGST Rules. If no objections arise, the authority will facilitate the electronic filing or revision of the form within two weeks. In case of objections, the petitioner will be given a single opportunity to correct the physical form within three weeks. Subsequently, the jurisdictional authority will forward the report and the physical form to the GST Network within one week. The GST Network will then either upload the form itself or allow the petitioner to upload it within a reasonable time. No form submitted in compliance with this order will be rejected for being filed outside the original time limit. The petitioner was directed to make the required compliance within one week from the date of the order.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Rajasthan Marble, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to upload Form GST TRAN-1 within an extended timeline. This issue is identical to that decided in Writ Tax No. 477 of 2021 and other connected matters. The respondent is the Union of India and other authorities. The tax period is not specified. The order or action under challenge is the inability to upload Form GST TRAN-1 electronically within the prescribed time. The amount in dispute is not stated. The procedural history involves the petitioner's inability to file the form electronically and their subsequent petition for an extended timeline.

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, under Section 140 of the CGST Act and Rule 117 of the CGST Rules? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued for an extended timeline to file Form GST TRAN-1, implying that circumstances beyond their control prevented timely electronic filing. They relied on the principle that genuine hardship should be addressed by the authorities. Respondent's Contention: The respondent's arguments are not recorded in the judgment. However, the court's decision implies that the revenue's position would typically be adherence to statutory timelines unless specific exceptions are made.