M/S Jai Laxmi Cement Co.(P.) LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA And 5 Others

Held

The Court held that Rule 120A of the CGST Rules, 2017, clearly states that a registered dealer may revise FORM GST TRAN-1 once within the specified time or such further period as may be extended by the Commissioner. The Court found that the power to extend this time period rests solely with the Commissioner. Therefore, an application for extension of time to submit a revised FORM GST TRAN-1 must be considered by the Commissioner and not by any other subordinate authority. The Court directed the Commissioner to call upon the application submitted by the petitioner before the Nodal Officer and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. If the Commissioner extends the time, the petitioner would then be permitted to submit the revised FORM GST TRAN-1.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Jai Laxmi Cement Co.(P.) Ltd., filed FORM GST TRAN-1 on October 20, 2017, within the prescribed time. However, due to an inadvertent mistake, the CENVAT credit admissible as Input Tax Credit (ITC) was entered in the wrong column, preventing it from reflecting in the electronic credit ledger. The petitioner then sought to submit a revised declaration form. To this end, they moved an application dated January 7, 2019, before the Nodal Officer, CGST and Central Excise, Varanasi, as per a circular of the Commissioner for dealing with such applications. The petitioner's application was for an extension of time to submit the revised FORM GST TRAN-1.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Commissioner has the power to extend the time period for submitting a revised FORM GST TRAN-1, as provided under Rule 120A of the CGST Rules, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that Rule 120A of the CGST Rules, 2017, allows for revision of FORM GST TRAN-1 within the specified time or such further period as may be extended by the Commissioner. They submitted an application to the Nodal Officer for this purpose, implying that the Nodal Officer, acting under the Commissioner's circular, could consider such extensions. Respondent's contention: The judgment does not explicitly record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the court's reasoning implies that the authority to extend time rests with the Commissioner, not a subordinate authority like the Nodal Officer.