Navkar Traders vs. The Union Of INDIA 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 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 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 consider the directions and observations in the present order. The Court noted that the challenge to the validity of Section 140 and Rule 117 had been negatived by this Court in the Nelco Limited case, and the Heritage Lifestyles judgment did not render these provisions directory.

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 core issue in all these petitions revolved around the inability of the petitioners to file or amend their TRAN-1 forms. This inability was attributed to technical glitches on the GST portal or the rejection of their requests for amendment, revision, or modification of the TRAN-1 forms. The petitioners sought an opportunity to rectify these forms to claim input tax credit. The respondents, Union of India and others, contended that the time period prescribed for filing TRAN-1 under Section 117 of the CGST Act was mandatory and had expired.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioners can be granted an opportunity to file or correct their TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 Forms, despite the prescribed timelines, if the inability to do so was due to technical glitches or rejection of amendment requests? The Petitioners argued that human errors should be correctable and that technical glitches preventing the filing of TRAN-1 should not bar them from claiming input tax credit. 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 judgment from the Aurangabad bench of the same High Court in Writ Petition No. 1690 of 2019. The Revenue (Union of India and others) contended that the period stipulated under Section 117 of the CGST Act for filing TRAN-1 is mandatory and that no right exists to file or amend the form after the expiry of this period. They cited the Bombay High Court's judgment in NELCO Ltd. v. Union of India.