Kiri Industries LTD vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The High Court disposed of all the captioned petitions in terms of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of 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 a period of two months, from September 1, 2022, to October 31, 2022. Any aggrieved registered assessee was permitted to file the relevant form or revise an already filed form, irrespective of whether they had filed a writ petition or if their case was decided by the ITGRC. GSTN was to ensure no technical glitches occurred during this period. The concerned officers were granted 90 days thereafter to verify the claims and pass appropriate orders on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to the parties. Subsequently, the allowed transitional credit was to be reflected in the Electronic Credit Ledger. The Supreme Court also suggested that the GST Council may issue appropriate guidelines to field formations for scrutinizing these claims. The High Court held that this Supreme Court decision would govern the rights of the parties.

Facts

The petitioners, registered under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and Service Tax laws, sought to claim carried forward eligible duties of CENVAT/Input Tax Credit on the appointed day of GST implementation (July 1, 2017). They aimed to file 'Form GST Tran-I' to claim this transitional credit, which was due by September 30, 2017. The petitioners contended that the due date for filing Form GST Tran-I was procedural and directory, not mandatory. They approached the High Court seeking directions to permit them to file this form, either electronically or manually, to claim their eligible CENVAT/Input Credit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the due date for filing Form GST Tran-I, as contemplated under Rule 117 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, is mandatory or directory in nature, concerning the claim of transitional credit under Section 140 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners argued that the due date for filing Form GST Tran-I was a procedural requirement and therefore directory, not mandatory. They sought permission to file the form to claim their eligible CENVAT/Input Tax Credit. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record any specific arguments made by the revenue authorities. However, the context implies that the revenue would typically uphold the statutory timelines and procedures for filing such forms.