M/S. Trimurti Enterprises Through Its Sole Proprietor Mr Yashwant Vitthal Gunjal vs. The Union Of INDIA Through The Sectretary And Others

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 (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 preferably be filed and/or corrected within three weeks. The jurisdictional assessing authority was directed to pass orders on these filings preferably within six weeks, considering the observations made in the Aurangabad bench's order. The Court clarified that any show cause notices issued during adjudication would also take into account the directions and observations in the present order. The ratio decidendi is that in cases of technical glitches or denial of amendment requests for TRAN-1, the GST authorities should provide an opportunity to file or correct the forms, even if the statutory period has expired, to serve the interest of justice, following precedent.

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 either 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 petitioners can be granted an opportunity to file or correct their TRAN-1 Forms, despite the expiry of the prescribed period under Section 117 of the CGST Act, if the delay was due to technical glitches or if their requests for amendment were denied? The petitioners argued that human errors should be correctable and that if technical glitches prevented the filing of TRAN-1 Forms, an opportunity to file them should be granted. They relied on the Bombay High Court's judgment in Heritage Lifestyles and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India. They also referred to a recent order by the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court in Ambica Fertilizers (supra) which allowed correction of TRAN-1 and filing of TRAN-2. The respondents (Revenue/Union of India) contended that the period prescribed under Section 117 of the CGST Act is mandatory. They cited the Bombay High Court's judgment in NELCO Ltd. v. Union of India, asserting that once the stipulated time has passed, petitioners have no right to file or amend TRAN-1 Forms. They argued against the directory nature of the provisions.