Nelco Limited vs. The Union Of INDIA Through Revenue 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 Ambica Fertilizers (supra) and connected writ petitions. 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/corrected within three weeks. The jurisdictional assessing authority was directed to pass orders on these forms as per the observations in the aforementioned 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 ratio decidendi is that in cases of technical glitches preventing the filing or amendment of TRAN-1 forms, the High Court can direct the authorities to consider the forms filed manually or corrected, despite the expiry of the statutory period, to ensure justice.

Facts

Multiple 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 revolved around the inability of the petitioners to file or amend their TRAN-1 Forms. The petitioners contended that they faced technical glitches on the GST portal, preventing them from filing the forms, or that their requests for amendment/revision/modification of already filed TRAN-1 Forms were denied. The tax authorities argued that the time period prescribed for filing TRAN-1 under Section 117 of the CGST Act was mandatory and that no extension or amendment should be permitted after its expiry.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to an opportunity to file or correct their TRAN-1 Forms, despite the expiry of the prescribed period under Section 117 of the CGST Act, in cases where technical glitches prevented timely filing or where amendment requests were denied? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 117 of the CGST Act and Rule 117 of the CGST Rules). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued that human errors should be rectifiable and that technical glitches should not prejudice their right to claim 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 forms due to technical issues. They also referred to a recent Aurangabad Bench judgment in Writ Petition No. 1690 of 2019 with connected matters. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents 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 forms after the stipulated time. They cited the Bombay High Court's judgment in NELCO Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors.