Tatanet Services Limited vs. The Union Of INDIA Through The Revenue, Ministry 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 (supra) and connected writ petitions. This order allowed petitioners to correct Form TRAN-1 and file Form TRAN-2. The Court clarified that if show cause notices were issued during adjudication, the directions and observations in the present order would be considered by the Authority. The petitioners were allowed to file and correct TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 Forms, and if online filing was not possible, manual filing would be permitted. The Court directed that these forms should be filed/corrected preferably within three weeks, and the Authority should pass orders thereon within six weeks, considering the observations in the referenced order. The ratio decidendi is that in cases of technical glitches preventing timely filing or amendment of TRAN-1, and where the petitioner is otherwise eligible, an opportunity should be granted to rectify the same, even if statutory timelines have passed, by following the principles established in prior judgments.

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 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 were unable to file or amend their TRAN-1 Forms due to technical glitches or denial of revision requests, should be granted an opportunity to file or correct these forms, considering the principles laid down in the judgment of Heritage Lifestyles and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India? The petitioners argued that human errors should be rectifiable and that technical glitches preventing the filing of TRAN-1 Forms should not bar them from claiming input tax credit. They relied on the Heritage Lifestyles judgment, which allowed correction of such forms. They also referred to a recent Aurangabad Bench judgment in Writ Petition No. 1690 of 2019 and connected petitions. The revenue, through learned Senior Advocate Mr. Jately and other advocates, contended that the period prescribed under Section 117 of the CGST Act for filing TRAN-1 is mandatory. They cited the Division Bench judgment of this Court in NELCO Ltd. v. Union of India, asserting that once the stipulated time has elapsed, petitioners have no right to file or amend the TRAN-1 Form. The revenue argued that the Heritage Lifestyles judgment did not render Section 140 and Rule 117 directory but rather allowed claims based on eligibility.