Nirmal Pran Engineering Private Limited Through Mrs. Aarti Katyal vs. The Union Of INDIA Through Revenue Secretary Ministry Of Finance Dept. 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 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 directed to pass orders on these forms as per the observations in the cited order, preferably within six weeks. The Court further clarified that if show cause notices were issued during adjudication, the directions and observations in the present order should also be considered by the Authority. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

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 revolves around the inability of the petitioners to file or amend their TRAN-1 Forms. This inability is attributed to technical glitches on the GST portal and/or the rejection of their requests for amendment, revision, or modification of the TRAN-1 Form. The tax periods are not explicitly stated for all petitioners, but the context points to the transition period under GST. The respondents are the Union of India and the State of Maharashtra, represented by various authorities.

Key Issues

1. Whether the period prescribed under Section 117 of the CGST Act for filing TRAN-1 Form is mandatory or directory, considering the petitioners' inability to file due to technical glitches? (Question of law) 2. Whether the petitioners, who could not file or amend TRAN-1 Form due to technical issues, should be granted an opportunity to rectify or file the same, despite the expiry of the stipulated period? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that human errors should be allowed to be corrected and that if TRAN-1 Form could not be filed due to technical glitches, they should be given an opportunity to file it. 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 human errors and filing of TRAN-1 due to technical glitches. They also referred to a recent Aurangabad Bench judgment in Writ Petition No. 1690 of 2019 with connected matters, which allowed correction of TRAN-1 and filing of TRAN-2 without prejudice to the rights of parties. Revenue's arguments: The Department argued that the period prescribed under Section 117 of the CGST Act is mandatory. They relied on the Bombay High Court's judgment in NELCO Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors., stating that after the stipulated time has expired, petitioners do not have a right to file TRAN-1 Form or seek its amendment/revision/modification.