Ags Transact Technologies LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA Through Its Secretary 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 of the same High Court in Ambica Fertilizers (supra) and connected writ petitions. 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 be filed or corrected preferably within three weeks. The jurisdictional assessing authority was directed to pass orders on these forms as per the observations in the aforementioned 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 common issue across these petitions was the inability of the petitioners to file or amend their TRAN-1 Forms due to technical glitches or rejection of their requests. The petitioners sought an opportunity to file or correct these forms to claim transitional input tax credit under the GST regime. The respondents, Union of India and others, contended that the time limits prescribed for filing TRAN-1 under Section 117 of the CGST Act were mandatory and that no extension or amendment should be permitted after the expiry of the stipulated period.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners should be granted an opportunity to file or amend their TRAN-1 Forms, despite the expiry of the prescribed timelines, in cases where technical glitches prevented timely filing or amendment? Petitioners' arguments: The petitioners contended that human errors should be rectifiable and that if technical glitches prevented the filing of TRAN-1, they should be given an opportunity to do so. They relied on the Bombay High Court's judgment in Heritage Lifestyles and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Union of India & Ors., 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 Writ Petition No. 1690 of 2019 and connected petitions. Revenue's arguments: The respondents argued that the period prescribed under Section 117 of the CGST Act is mandatory and that petitioners have no right to file or amend TRAN-1 after the time limit has expired. They relied on the Bombay High Court's judgment in NELCO Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors.