M/S Windlass Engineers And Services Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, a private limited company, sought to rectify clerical mistakes in its TRAN-1 Form, which was submitted within the stipulated time. The respondents, represented by the revenue authorities, rejected the petitioner's request for rectification. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the rejection letter and a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to accept the rectified TRAN-1 Form manually or to reopen the portal for correction. Alternatively, the petitioner sought the refund of CENVAT credit that was short-claimed due to the clerical error. The petitioner claimed CENVAT credit of Rs. 40,36,485/- or, in the alternative, Rs. 33,30,700/-.

Held

The High Court decided the writ petition in terms of its previous judgment dated August 2, 2022, passed in WPMS No. 975 of 2020 and other connected writ petitions. The Court directed that it shall be open for the petitioner to submit TRAN-1/Revised TRAN-1 Form during the window period provided in the order dated July 22, 2022, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No(s) 32709-32710/2018. This implies that the petitioner was granted an opportunity to rectify their TRAN-1 Form within the extended window, thereby addressing the issue of carrying forward CENVAT credit. The reasoning is based on the precedent set by the Court in similar matters, allowing taxpayers to correct bona fide clerical errors in TRAN-1 to avail their legitimate CENVAT credit. The ratio decidendi is that genuine clerical errors in TRAN-1, which prevent the legitimate carry forward of CENVAT credit, should be allowed to be rectified, especially when a window for such correction is provided by higher courts.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of certiorari to quash the rejection letter denying the rectification of clerical mistakes in TRAN-1 Form, and to declare it violative of Articles 14, 300A, and 265 of the Constitution of India and the CGST Act, 2017? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to accept the rectified TRAN-1 Form manually or to open the Common Portal for correction, thereby allowing the petitioner to carry forward CENVAT credit of Rs. 40,36,485/- or Rs. 33,30,700/-? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to an alternative writ of mandamus directing the refund of Rs. 33,30,700/- CENVAT credit short-claimed due to clerical error? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the rejection of their request for rectification of clerical mistakes in TRAN-1 Form was arbitrary and violated their constitutional rights and the provisions of the CGST Act. They relied on a previous judgment of the High Court dated August 2, 2022, in similar writ petitions and requested that their case be decided in terms of that judgment. Revenue's Arguments: The counsel for the respondents had no objection if the writ petition was decided in terms of the aforesaid judgment.