Pearl Surface vs. The Union Of INDIA 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 preferably be filed within three weeks. The jurisdictional assessing authority was instructed to pass orders on these forms within six weeks, considering the observations made in the referenced order. The Court further clarified that any show cause notices issued during adjudication should also take into account the directions and observations in the present order. The ratio decidendi is that in cases of genuine technical glitches preventing the filing of transitional credit forms, the High Court can direct the authorities to accept and consider such forms, even if the statutory timelines have expired, to prevent injustice.

Facts

Multiple petitioners, including M/s. Ashoka Buildcon Ltd., Hira Movers, and M.M. Polymers Pvt. Ltd., filed writ petitions challenging the inability to file or amend TRAN-1 Forms. The core issue was that technical glitches prevented them from filing these forms, which are crucial for claiming transitional input tax credit under the GST regime. The revenue authorities contended that the time limits prescribed for filing TRAN-1 were mandatory and that no relief could be granted after the expiry of these periods. The petitioners argued that human errors and technical glitches should not bar them from claiming legitimate credit, citing previous High Court judgments.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to file or amend their TRAN-1 Forms, despite the expiry of the prescribed timelines, due to technical glitches encountered during the filing process? (Section 140 and Rule 117 of CGST Act). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that the inability to file or amend TRAN-1 was due to technical issues beyond their control. They relied on the Bombay High Court judgment in Heritage Lifestyles and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, which allowed correction of human errors and filing of TRAN-1 forms in cases of technical glitches. They also referred to a recent Aurangabad Bench order that permitted correction and filing of TRAN-1/TRAN-2 forms. Revenue's arguments: The respondents argued that the period prescribed under Section 140 and Rule 117 for filing TRAN-1 is mandatory and cannot be extended. They cited the Bombay High Court judgment in NELCO Ltd. v. Union of India, which upheld the mandatory nature of these provisions. They submitted that once the stipulated time has passed, the petitioners have no right to file or amend the TRAN-1 Form.