M/S Ratanjyot Steel And Pipes PVT. LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court directed the respondents to consider the representation of the writ applicants at the earliest, keeping in mind the ratio laid down in the case of Filco Trade Center Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The Court reasoned that the applicants had made several representations seeking to claim input tax credit for stock held prior to 12 months from the appointed date, which was in line with the precedent set by this Court. The respondents had not replied to these representations. The Court ordered that this exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this order. The issue of whether the GSTN portal could be amended or re-opened was implicitly addressed by directing the respondents to consider the representation, which would involve facilitating the claim.

Facts

The writ applicants, M/s Ratanjyot Steel and Pipes Pvt. Ltd., sought to amend or re-open their GST Form-Tran 1, filed on August 28, 2017. They wished to carry forward in-transit credit for stock held beyond 12 months prior to the effective date of July 1, 2017, as per Section 140(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, and Rule 117 of CGST Rules, 2017. The applicants claimed entitlement to this credit based on this Court's decision in Filco Trade Center Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India. Despite multiple representations made from October 3, 2018, to May 24, 2019, to the respondent authorities, no reply was received, prompting this writ application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ applicants are entitled to carry forward in-transit credit pertaining to stock of goods held beyond 12 months from the effective date of July 1, 2017, in terms of Section 140(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Rule 117 of CGST Rules, 2017, by way of amendment or re-opening of the GSTN portal or manually. Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that they are entitled to carry forward the input tax credit for stock held beyond 12 months prior to the appointed date, relying on the Gujarat High Court's decision in Filco Trade Center Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, which struck down clause (iv) of sub-section (3) of Section 140 as unconstitutional for imposing a burden retrospectively without justification. They argued that despite their representations, the respondents failed to reply. Revenue's argument: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue or state.