Ms Om Shree Durga Udyog Through Its Authorized Signatory Ramesh Chandra Sharma vs. The Goods And Services Tax Network Through Its Chairman

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Om Shree Durga Udyog, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court challenging Rule 117 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, which prescribed a period of limitation for claiming Input Tax Credit (ITC) in Form GST TRAN-1. The petitioner argued that Section 140 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, did not authorize the rule-making authority to impose such a time limit. The petitioner also sought to quash an order dated 12.06.2020 by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Dhanbad, rejecting their manually filed Form GST TRAN-1 due to non-filing online. The petitioner claimed technical difficulties prevented online filing and had previously sought portal access. The respondents included GSTN, Union of India, and Jharkhand State tax authorities.

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner had requested withdrawal of the writ petition as their grievance had been redressed. It was stated that the petitioner had already filed a revised TRAN-I during the window period granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another versus Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. and another [2022 VIL 38 SC]. The respondents also submitted that the writ petition had become infructuous. Considering that the Apex Court's judgment in Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. and another had addressed the petitioner's grievance, the High Court disposed of the writ petition. No specific findings were made on the legal issues raised by the petitioner regarding the vires of Rule 117 or the applicability of the Limitation Act, as the matter was resolved by the subsequent events and the Supreme Court's decision.

Key Issues

1. Whether Rule 117 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, to the extent it prescribes a period of limitation for claiming Input Tax Credit (ITC) in Form GST TRAN-1, is ultra vires to Section 140 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as Section 140 does not authorize the rule-making authority to prescribe a time limit for filing Form GST TRAN-1 for claiming ITC? 2. Whether the due date contemplated under Rule 117 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, for claiming transitional credit is merely directory and not mandatory, given its procedural nature and the absence of a time limit in Section 140 of the JGST Act, 2017? 3. Whether, in the absence of any time limit in Section 140 of the JGST Act, 2017, the claim in Form GST TRAN-1 can be filed within three years from the date of coming into force of the JGST Act, 2017, i.e., 30.06.2020, as per Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963? 4. Whether the order dated 12.06.2020, rejecting the petitioner's manually filed Form GST TRAN-1, is liable to be quashed, and if the petitioner should be directed to accept the manually filed Form GST TRAN-1 and decide it on merits? Petitioner's arguments: Rule 117 is ultra vires Section 140 as it imposes a time limit not provided for in the Act. The due date under Rule 117 is procedural and directory. In the absence of a statutory time limit, Article 137 of the Limitation Act applies. The rejection order is bad in law, and the petitioner should be allowed to file TRAN-1 and claim ITC. Respondents' arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents regarding the vires of Rule 117 or the applicability of the Limitation Act. However, their submission that the writ petition has become infructuous implies they are not contesting the petitioner's grievance being addressed.