Mohite Motors PVT. LTD. 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, passed by the Aurangabad Bench in *Ambica Fertilizers* and connected matters. The Court allowed the petitioners to file and correct their 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/corrected within three weeks. The jurisdictional assessing authority was directed to pass orders on these forms, considering the observations in the Aurangabad Bench's 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 ratio decidendi is that in cases of technical glitches preventing timely filing or amendment of TRAN-1 forms, the GST authorities should grant an opportunity to the assessees to rectify the situation, aligning with principles of justice and fairness, and considering previous High Court pronouncements.

Facts

Multiple petitioners, including M/s. Ashoka Buildcon Ltd., Hira Movers, and others, filed writ petitions before the Bombay High Court. The core issue in these petitions revolved around the inability of the petitioners to file or amend their TRAN-1 Forms. The petitioners contended that they faced technical glitches or that their requests for amendment, revision, or modification of the TRAN-1 Form were not permitted. The tax period(s) are not explicitly stated but relate to the transition to GST. The action under challenge is the denial of opportunity to file or amend TRAN-1 Forms by the GST authorities. The amount in dispute is not specified.

Key Issues

1. Whether the period prescribed under Section 117 of the CGST Act for filing TRAN-1 Form is mandatory or directory, particularly when petitioners faced technical glitches or were denied amendments. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued, relying on the judgment in *Heritage Lifestyles and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India*, that human errors should be allowed to be corrected and that if technical glitches prevented filing, an opportunity should be granted. They also referred to a recent Aurangabad Bench judgment in *Ambica Fertilizers* (connected petitions decided on April 13, 2022). Revenue's arguments: The respondents (Union of India and others) contended that the period prescribed under Section 117 of the CGST Act is mandatory, citing the Division Bench judgment in *NELCO Ltd. v. Union of India*. They argued that after the stipulated time, petitioners have no right to file or amend TRAN-1 Forms.