M/S Jagadamba Hardware Stores vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had failed to make out a strong case for any writ to be issued. The Court found no proof adduced by the petitioner of having attempted to fill the TRAN-1 form during the stipulated extended periods up to December 27, 2017. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner had not provided any evidence of attempting to fill the form and failing due to technical glitches, which was a prerequisite for availing the facility provided under the circular dated April 3, 2018. The Court also observed that the petitioner first approached the GST Help Desk on January 22, 2019, which was a considerable delay. The Court distinguished the cited judgments, Siddharth Enterprises and Krish Automotors, on facts, stating that in those cases, genuine assessees had established bonafide attempts to file TRAN-1, unlike the present case where no such proof was available. The Court concluded that the writ benefit cannot be extended to indolent persons who sleep over their rights without plausible explanation. Therefore, the writ petition was rejected.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Jagadamba Hardware Stores, sought a writ to allow them to submit their TRAN-1 form electronically or manually to claim input tax credit under Section 140(3) of the GST Act. The TRAN-1 form was initially due by September 30, 2017, with extensions to November 30, 2017, and December 27, 2017. The petitioner claimed they could not file it electronically due to technical glitches and approached the GST Help Desk on January 22, 2019, and subsequently a Nodal Officer on May 6, 2019, requesting manual submission, which was denied, leading to the present writ petition. The respondents argued that the petitioner failed to provide any evidence of attempting to file the TRAN-1 form electronically or approaching the department promptly.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction to submit the TRAN-1 form electronically or manually, despite failing to meet the statutory deadlines and provide evidence of attempted electronic filing, under Section 140(3) and Rule 117 of the CGST Act? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that they faced technical glitches while trying to file the TRAN-1 form electronically. They relied on Circular No. 39/13/2018-GST dated April 3, 2018, which, according to them, extended the time for genuine traders facing IT difficulties to file TRAN-1 by April 31, 2018. They cited Siddharth Enterprises Vs. Nodal Officer (Gujarat High Court) and Krish Automotors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Others (Delhi High Court) to support their claim for relief. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the petitioner failed to produce any evidence of attempting to file the TRAN-1 form electronically or approaching the department promptly with their difficulties. They emphasized that the extended deadlines were missed and that the circular dated April 3, 2018, was only for those who had attempted and failed, which the petitioner had not proven. They contended that the petitioner was indolent and had not approached any officer for a considerable period.