M/S.Kalin Engineering vs. The Principal Chief

Held

The Court directed the sixth respondent (Nodal Officer/Joint Commissioner (ST)) to consider the petitioner's representation dated April 1, 2019, on its own merits and in accordance with law. The Court acknowledged the admitted technical snags in the uploading process. The sixth respondent is to pass orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, after providing the petitioner with a due opportunity to be heard. The Court did not explicitly decide on the legality of the 'time barred' rejection but remanded the matter for fresh consideration, taking into account the technical issues. The primary relief sought by the petitioner, to enable filing of TRAN-1, is to be addressed by the sixth respondent.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.Kalin Engineering Industries, a taxpayer under TNVAT, CST, and TNGST, sought to migrate to the GST regime. To avail input tax credit from the erstwhile acts, they were required to file GST TRAN-1 electronically by December 27, 2017. The petitioner claims they were unable to upload the TRAN-1 form due to technical issues with the GST portal. They approached the Nodal Officer, who rejected their request as 'time barred'. The petitioner had made several representations to the GST Grievance Cell and respondents between May 24, 2018, and April 1, 2019. It is admitted that technical snags existed in the web portal during the transition from TNVAT to GST.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to file GST TRAN-1 electronically, considering the admitted technical snags in the GST portal during the transition period, and whether the rejection of their request as 'time barred' by the Nodal Officer was justified? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that they were prevented from filing GST TRAN-1 electronically due to technical issues with the portal. They relied on their repeated representations to the GST Grievance Cell and the respondents, highlighting the ongoing technical difficulties. They sought a direction to enable them to file the form electronically and have it treated as filed in accordance with law. Revenue's Argument: The respondents, through the Nodal Officer, rejected the petitioner's request as 'time barred', implying that the deadline for filing TRAN-1 had passed and no extension or special consideration was warranted. No specific arguments or reliance on provisions by the revenue were recorded in the judgment.