M/S. Shakti Developers Through Ramesh N Patel vs. The Union Of INDIA Through The Revenue Secretary, Ministry Of Finance , Dept. Of Revenue And Ors

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* 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 and/or corrected within three weeks. The jurisdictional assessing authority was instructed to pass orders on these filings/corrections as per the observations in the aforementioned order, preferably within six weeks. The Court further clarified that any show cause notices issued during adjudication should also consider the directions and observations made in the present order. The ratio decidendi is that in cases of technical glitches preventing timely filing or amendment of TRAN-1, and where petitioners are otherwise eligible, an opportunity to rectify should be provided, even if statutory periods are involved, by following the principles laid down in prior judgments.

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 was the inability of the petitioners to file or amend their TRAN-1 Forms. This inability stemmed from alleged technical glitches on the GST portal or the rejection of their requests for amendment, revision, or modification of the TRAN-1 Form. The petitions challenged the revenue's stance that the prescribed period for filing TRAN-1 was mandatory and non-extendable.

Key Issues

1. Whether the period prescribed under Section 117 of the CGST Act for filing the TRAN-1 Form is mandatory or directory, particularly when petitioners faced technical glitches or were denied amendments. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners contended that human errors should be rectifiable and that if technical glitches prevented timely filing or amendment of TRAN-1, they should be granted an opportunity to do so. They relied on the Bombay High Court's judgment in *Heritage Lifestyles and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India* which allowed correction of human errors and filing of TRAN-1 due to technical issues. They also referred to a recent Aurangabad Bench order in *Ambica Fertilizers* (connected petitions) which permitted correction and filing of TRAN-1/TRAN-2. Revenue's Arguments: The respondents (Union of India and others) argued that the period stipulated under Section 117 of the CGST Act is mandatory. They cited the Bombay High Court's judgment in *NELCO Ltd. v. Union of India* to support their contention that once the stipulated time has expired, petitioners do not have a right to file or amend the TRAN-1 Form.