Sandvik Asia PVT. LTD. vs. The Union Of INDIA Thru The Revenue Secretary, Dept. Of Revenue , Ministry Of Finance 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 be filed or corrected preferably within three weeks. The jurisdictional assessing authority was instructed to pass orders on these filings/corrections as per the observations in the referred order, preferably within six weeks. The Court further clarified that any show cause notices issued during adjudication should also consider the directions and observations made in the present order. The ratio decidendi is that in cases of technical glitches preventing timely filing or amendment of TRAN-1/TRAN-2 forms, and where the petitioner is otherwise eligible, an opportunity should be granted to rectify the situation, notwithstanding the mandatory nature of the time limits, by referring to earlier High Court judgments that allowed such corrections in the interest of 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 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 the subsequent denial of requests for amendment, revision, or modification of these forms. The petitioners seek an opportunity to rectify or file these forms, arguing that human errors and technical issues should not preclude them from claiming input tax credit.

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 and denial of amendment requests. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that human errors can be corrected and that if technical glitches prevented the filing of TRAN-1 Form, 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. Revenue's arguments: The respondents (Union of India and others) argued that the period stipulated under Section 117 of the CGST Act is mandatory. They cited the Bombay High Court's judgment in NELCO Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors., asserting that once the stipulated time has passed, petitioners have no right to file or amend TRAN-1 Form.