A Raymond Fasteners INDIA PVT. LTD. And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIA Through Jt. Secretary And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the petitioners should be allowed to file and correct their TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 Forms. This decision was based on the reasoning that justice would be served by allowing such corrections, particularly when technical glitches prevented timely filing or amendment. The Court referred to and disposed of the present writ petitions in terms of a previous order dated April 13, 2022, passed by a Division Bench of the same Court at Aurangabad in Ambica Fertilizers (supra) and connected writ petitions. The ratio decidendi is that when genuine technical difficulties prevent compliance with procedural requirements for claiming transitional credit, the authorities should provide an opportunity for correction, even if statutory timelines have expired, to ensure substantive justice. The Court directed that if online filing is not possible, manual filing should be permitted. The petitioners were given three weeks to file or correct the forms, and the authorities were directed to pass orders within six weeks, considering the directions and observations in the present order, especially if show cause notices were issued during adjudication.

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 these petitions was the inability of the petitioners to file or amend their TRAN-1 Forms, which are crucial for claiming transitional input tax credit under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. The petitioners attributed this failure to technical glitches on the GST portal and/or the denial of their requests for amendment or revision of the TRAN-1 Forms by the revenue authorities. The tax periods involved are not explicitly stated but relate to the transition to GST.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners, who faced technical glitches or were denied amendments, should be granted an opportunity to file or correct their TRAN-1 Forms, despite the prescribed time limits under Section 117 of the CGST Act, 2017, and Rule 117 of the CGST Rules, 2017? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on Section 117 and Rule 117). Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued, relying on the Bombay High Court's judgment in Heritage Lifestyles and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, that human errors and technical glitches should be rectifiable, and an opportunity to file TRAN-1 should be provided if otherwise eligible for credit. Revenue's contention: The respondents (Union of India and others) contended that the period prescribed under Section 117 of the CGST Act is mandatory and that after its expiry, petitioners have no right to file or amend TRAN-1 Forms, citing the Bombay High Court's judgment in NELCO Ltd. vs. Union of India.