Ms R P M Associates Through One Of Its Partner Mr Manoj Kumar Drolia vs. The Goods And Services Tax Network Represented By Its Chairman

Held

The Court held that the petitioner, M/s. R.P.M. Associates, is entitled to file its TRAN-1 application within the window period granted by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & another Vs. Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. The Court noted that the Supreme Court, in its judgment dated July 22, 2022, and subsequent order dated September 2, 2022, directed GSTN to open the common portal for filing TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms for a specified period, allowing any aggrieved registered assessee to file or revise their forms irrespective of prior proceedings. The Court found that the petitioner's situation falls within the scope of these directions. Therefore, the petitioner is permitted to submit their TRAN-1 application within the extended window as per the Apex Court's directions, and their case will abide by those directions. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. R.P.M. Associates, sought a direction to file Form GST TRAN-I to carry forward transitional credit from the pre-GST regime to the GST regime. Their 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. allowed aggrieved registered assesses to file or revise relevant forms, irrespective of prior writ petitions or ITGRC decisions. The Supreme Court had directed GSTN to open the common portal for filing TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 for two months from September 1, 2022, and later extended this period by four weeks. The petitioner contended their case falls within these directions and they should be allowed to file TRAN-1 within the granted window.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, M/s. R.P.M. Associates, is entitled to file Form GST TRAN-I to carry forward transitional credit, considering the Supreme Court's directions in Union of India & another Vs. Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd.? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the Supreme Court's decision in Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. mandates that any aggrieved registered assessee can file or revise relevant forms, including TRAN-1, regardless of whether a writ petition was previously filed or the case was decided by the ITGRC. They argued that the subsequent extension of the portal opening period by the Supreme Court should also apply to them, allowing them to file their TRAN-1 application within the extended window. Revenue/State's arguments: The counsel for CGST, GSTN, and the State of Jharkhand agreed that the petitioner's case is covered by the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. case.