Mohite Auto Services, Kolhapur vs. The Union Of INDIA Thru The Secreary, Ministry Of Law And Justice And Ors

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petitions in terms of the order dated April 13, 2022, delivered by the Aurangabad Bench in Ambica Fertilizers (supra) and connected writ petitions. The Court allowed the petitioners to file and correct TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms. If online filing was not possible, manual filing was permitted. The Court directed that these forms should preferably be filed within three weeks. The jurisdictional assessing authority was directed to pass orders on these filings/corrections as per the observations in the referenced order, preferably within six weeks. The Court further clarified that if show cause notices were issued during adjudication, the directions and observations in the present order should also be considered by the Authority. The Court noted that the challenge to the validity of Section 140 and Rule 117 had been negatived by this Court in Nelco Limited.

Facts

Numerous petitioners, including M/s. Ashoka Buildcon Ltd., Hira Movers, and M.M. Polymers Pvt. Ltd., filed writ petitions before the Bombay High Court. The core issue in these petitions revolves around the inability of the petitioners to file or amend their TRAN-1 forms. The petitioners claim this failure was due to technical glitches on the GST portal or the rejection of their requests for amendment, revision, or modification of the TRAN-1 form. The tax periods are not explicitly stated for all petitioners, but the context implies the transition period under GST. The respondents are the Union of India and its authorities.

Key Issues

1. Whether the period prescribed under Section 117 of the CGST Act for filing TRAN-1 is mandatory or directory, considering the petitioners' inability to file due to technical glitches or rejected amendment requests. The petitioners argued that human errors should be correctable and that if technical glitches prevented the filing of TRAN-1, an opportunity to file should be granted. They relied on the Bombay High Court's judgment in Heritage Lifestyles and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Union of India & Ors. The petitioners also referred to a recent judgment of the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 1690 of 2019 with connected matters, which allowed correction of TRAN-1 and filing of TRAN-2. The respondents, represented by Mr. Jately and other advocates, contended that the period prescribed under Section 117 of the CGST Act is mandatory and that after the stipulated time, petitioners have no right to file or amend TRAN-1. They cited the Bombay High Court's Division Bench judgment in NELCO Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors.