M/S. Inabata INDIA PVT. LTD. Through Its Authorised Signatory vs. Union Of INDIA Through The 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 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 referred order. The Court 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 the timely filing of TRAN-1, the High Court can direct the authorities to consider the forms, 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 due to alleged technical glitches. The petitioners sought an opportunity to rectify these forms to claim transitional input tax credit under the GST regime. 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, thus barring any further action.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners can be granted an opportunity to file or amend their TRAN-1 Forms, despite the expiry of the prescribed time limit, if the non-filing or incorrect filing was due to technical glitches? (Section 117, Section 140, Rule 117 of CGST Act/Rules) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued that human errors should be rectifiable 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. vs. The Union of India & Ors., which allowed correction of TRAN-1 in cases of technical issues. Revenue's arguments: The Revenue contended that the period prescribed under Section 117 of the CGST Act is mandatory and that no right exists to file or amend TRAN-1 after the stipulated time has elapsed. They cited the Bombay High Court's judgment in NELCO Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors. to support their stance.