Prayagraj Dyeing And Printing Mills PVT. LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court noted that the issue involved had been addressed by the Supreme Court in Union of India and Anr. vs. Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd and Anr. The Supreme Court had directed the Goods and Service Tax Network (GSTN) to open a common portal for filing concerned forms for availing Transitional Credit through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 for two months, from 01.09.2022 to 31.10.2022. Any aggrieved registered assessee was directed to file the relevant form or revise the already filed form, irrespective of whether a writ petition was filed or the case was decided by the ITGRC. GSTN was to ensure no technical glitches during this period. The concerned officers were given 90 days thereafter to verify the claims and pass appropriate orders on merits after granting an opportunity to the parties. Subsequently, the allowed Transitional credit was to be reflected in the Electronic Credit Ledger. The High Court held that the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court shall govern the rights of the parties. The petition was disposed of in terms of these directions.

Facts

The petitioner, Prayagraj Dyeing and Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd., engaged in job work and holding GST registration, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner sought to claim Transitional Credit of INR 20,70,823/- under Section 140 of the CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 117 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner had intended to claim INR 42,50,798/- but due to a numerical error in the initial FORM GST TRAN-1 submission, only INR 21,79,975/- was claimed. The last date for filing TRAN-1 was 27.12.2017. The petitioner attempted to submit a revised TRAN-1 on 02.01.2018, but the portal did not permit it. Despite correspondence regarding portal snags, the respondents did not respond, leading to the present petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim Transitional Credit of INR 20,70,823/- under Section 140 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 117 of the CGST Rules, 2017, despite a numerical error in the initial submission and inability to file a revised TRAN-1 due to portal issues? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that due to a numerical error in the initial FORM GST TRAN-1, they claimed less credit than entitled. They further contended that they were prevented from filing a revised TRAN-1 due to technical glitches on the GST portal after the prescribed due date. They sought directions to allow them to upload a fresh or manually submit the FORM GST TRAN-1 to claim the correct credit. Revenue's contention: The judgment records that learned advocates appearing for the respective parties were ad idem that the issue had been answered by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Anr. vs. Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd and Anr.