Gayatri Agro Agencies vs. The Union Of INDIA And Others

Held

The Court held that the order dated 12.06.2020, communicated by Respondent No.5, was unsustainable as it was passed without providing any reasons, indicating a non-application of mind. The Court noted the controversy surrounding whether the petitioner's uploading on November 10, 2017, constituted a first revision or a second attempt. The Court found that the successful uploading on November 10, 2017, was essentially a copy of the form initially attempted to be submitted, which had failed due to portal glitches. Therefore, the revision sought was not a second revision in the impermissible sense. The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order. It permitted the petitioner to tender the revised Form GST TRAN-1, both online and manually to Respondent No.4, within two weeks. This permission for manual submission was granted in view of the judgments in Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Siddharth Enterprises. Respondent No.4 was directed to decide the revised form in accordance with prescribed procedures. The Court expressly left undecided the challenge to Rule 117 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017, as the petitioner withdrew those prayers.

Facts

The petitioner, Gayatri Agro Agencies, sought to submit a revised Form GST TRAN-1 to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) accrued prior to GST implementation. The petitioner initially attempted to upload the form on August 28, 2017, claiming Rs. 66,45,387/- under VAT and Rs. 7,77,489/- under Excise. However, due to alleged glitches in the GSTN portal, the form was not properly uploaded, displaying a "pending invoices" message. Despite multiple complaints lodged between September and December 2017, the GSTN portal indicated that the period for uploading the return had expired. The petitioner then attempted manual submission and approached the High Court. An earlier writ petition resulted in a direction for the respondent to decide the petitioner's representation, which was subsequently rejected by the Superintendent CGST and Central Excise, Amalner Range, stating the claim was not approved by the ITGRC Committee without providing reasons. The petitioner contended that the uploading on November 10, 2017, was the first successful attempt, and the subsequent revision was permissible under Rule 120-A.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner can be permitted to submit a revised Form GST TRAN-1 electronically or manually, considering the alleged technical glitches in the GSTN portal during the initial submission period, and in light of Rule 120-A of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that due to technical glitches in the GSTN portal, their initial Form GST TRAN-1 was not properly uploaded. They contended that the uploading on November 10, 2017, was the first successful attempt, and the subsequent revision sought was permissible under Rule 120-A. They relied on judgments from the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and the Gujarat High Court in Siddharth Enterprises Vs. The Nodal Officer to support the allowance of manual submission. Revenue's arguments: The revenue contended that the petitioner could not be allowed to file revised returns under Form GST TRAN-1 after it was once filed. They argued that the opportunity to file a revised TRAN-1 had already been given, and the petitioner's attempt to upload on November 10, 2017, was being treated as a second revision, which is impermissible.