Sai Point Automobiles Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIA Through Chief Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise Mumbai And Anr

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petitions in terms of a previous order dated April 13, 2022, passed by the Aurangabad Bench in Ambica Fertilizers (supra) and connected writ petitions. The Court clarified that if show cause notices were issued during adjudication, the directions and observations in the present order would also be considered by the Authority. The petitioners were allowed to file and correct TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms. If online filing was not possible, manual filing would be permitted. The Court directed that these forms should preferably be filed and/or corrected within three weeks. The Authority was directed to pass orders on these forms as per the observations in the order, preferably within six weeks. The Court's reasoning was based on the principle of allowing correction of TRAN-1 forms in cases of technical glitches or unaddressed amendment requests, aligning with previous High Court judgments that balanced the mandatory nature of provisions with the need for justice in specific circumstances. The ratio decidendi is that while statutory timelines are important, the High Court can direct authorities to consider TRAN-1 filings/corrections when genuine technical issues or procedural impediments prevented timely compliance, provided the petitioner is otherwise eligible.

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 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 denied. The tax authorities, represented by learned counsel, argued that the period prescribed for filing TRAN-1 under Section 117 of the CGST Act was mandatory and that no right existed to file or amend the form after the stipulated time had expired. The petitions were filed across various years, including 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners can be permitted to file or amend their TRAN-1 forms, despite the expiry of the prescribed period under Section 117 of the CGST Act, if they faced technical glitches or their requests for amendment were denied? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 117 of the CGST Act and Rule 117 of the CGST Rules). Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioners argued, relying on the judgment in Heritage Lifestyles and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, that human errors should be rectifiable and that an opportunity should be granted to file TRAN-1 forms if technical glitches prevented their timely submission. They also relied on a recent judgment from the Aurangabad Bench of the same High Court in Writ Petition No. 1690 of 2019 and connected petitions. Revenue's Contentions: The respondents (Union of India and others) contended, citing the judgment in NELCO Ltd. v. Union of India, that the period stipulated under Section 117 of the CGST Act is mandatory, and petitioners have no right to file or seek amendment of TRAN-1 forms after the expiry of the time limit.