M/S. Chavan Motor Div. (I) PVT. LTD. vs. The State Of Maharashtra Thru Gp High Court 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 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 within three weeks. The jurisdictional assessing authority was directed to pass orders on these forms within six weeks, considering the observations made in the referenced order. The Court further clarified that any show-cause notices issued during adjudication should also take into account the directions and observations in the present order. The ratio decidendi is that in cases of technical glitches preventing timely filing or amendment of TRAN-1, the GST authorities should provide an opportunity for correction, even if the statutory period has expired, to ensure justice.

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 tax periods involved are not explicitly stated but relate to the transition to the GST regime. The petitioners sought relief from the High Court challenging the inaction or adverse decisions of the GST authorities regarding their TRAN-1 filings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the period prescribed for filing or amending TRAN-1 Form under Section 117 of the CGST Act, 2017, is mandatory or directory, considering the petitioners' inability to file due to technical glitches or rejection of amendment requests. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that human errors should be allowed to be corrected and that if TRAN-1 Form could not be filed due to technical glitches, an opportunity to file it should be granted. They relied on the Bombay High Court's judgment in Heritage Lifestyles and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, which allowed correction of TRAN-1 if the petitioner was otherwise eligible for credit. Revenue's arguments: The respondents (Union of India and others) argued that the period prescribed under Section 117 of the CGST Act is mandatory and that after the stipulated time, petitioners do not have a right to file or amend the TRAN-1 Form. They cited the Bombay High Court's judgment in NELCO Ltd. v. Union of India.