Sanjay Agencies Through Its Authorized Signatory Mitesh Drolia vs. The Goods And Services Tax Network Represented By Its Chairman

Held

The High Court held that the petitioner's case is covered by the directions passed by the Supreme Court in Union of India & another Vs. Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. & another, and the subsequent order dated September 2, 2022, which extended the time for opening the GST common portal. The Court noted that the Supreme Court's directions allowed any aggrieved registered assessee to file the relevant form or revise an already filed form, irrespective of prior litigation or ITGRC decisions. The Court acknowledged that the time for opening the GST common portal was extended for a further period of four weeks from the date of the order. Consequently, the petitioner, who had not submitted their TRAN-1 application, was permitted to submit it within the window period as per the Apex Court's directions. The writ petition was disposed of in accordance with these directions.

Facts

The petitioner, Sanjay Agencies, sought a direction from the High Court to allow them to file Form GST TRAN-I to carry forward transitional credit from the pre-GST regime to the GST regime. Their prior representation to do so was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Ranchi, on January 5, 2021. The petitioner argued that the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India & another Vs. Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. & another, and subsequent orders extending the portal opening period, covered their case. The respondents, including the CGST, GSTN, and the State of Jharkhand, agreed that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of the Apex Court's directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, Sanjay Agencies, is entitled to be allowed to file Form GST TRAN-I for carrying forward transitional credit, despite the rejection of their earlier representation, in light of the Supreme Court's directions in Union of India & another Vs. Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. & another? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner contended that the Supreme Court in Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. allowed any aggrieved registered assessee to file or revise relevant forms, irrespective of whether a writ petition was filed or the case was decided by the ITGRC. They further submitted that the Supreme Court extended the portal opening period for filing concerned forms for availing transitional credit through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2. The petitioner argued that their writ petition was filed before these directions, but their case falls within the scope of the Supreme Court's directions and they should be allowed to avail the granted window period. Revenue/State's Contentions: The learned counsel for CGST, GSTN, and the State of Jharkhand agreed that the petitioner's case was covered by the directions passed by the Apex Court in the case of Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd.