Vertiv Energy PVT. LTD. vs. The Union Of INDIA Through Revenue Secretary, Dept. Of Revenue , Ministry Of Finance 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 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 or genuine inability to file/amend TRAN-1 within the stipulated period, the GST authorities should provide an opportunity to the assessees to rectify the forms, ensuring that genuine claims for input tax credit are not defeated by procedural or technical shortcomings, while still considering the eligibility criteria under Section 140 of the CGST Act.

Facts

Multiple 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 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 petitioners sought an opportunity to rectify these issues, arguing that human errors and technical failures should not preclude them from claiming input tax credit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners should be allowed to file or amend their TRAN-1 Forms, despite the prescribed timelines, due to technical glitches or other reasons preventing timely filing/correction, under Section 140 and Rule 117 of the CGST Act? Petitioners' arguments: The petitioners contended that technical glitches and human errors should not be a bar to filing TRAN-1 Forms. 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 if technical glitches occurred. They also referred to a recent Aurangabad Bench order in Ambica Fertilizers, which permitted correction of TRAN-1 and filing of TRAN-2. Respondents' arguments: The respondents, represented by the Department, argued 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 for filing or amending TRAN-1 has expired, petitioners have no right to do so.