M/S. Accurate Engineering vs. The Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the judgment rendered by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, while persuasive, was not binding on this Court. Consequently, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of the High Court's own earlier judgment in Jodhpur Truck Pvt. Ltd. The Court directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to submit the GST TRAN-1 form offline. This was subject to the petitioner furnishing proof of attempting to upload the form prior to December 27, 2017, and demonstrating that the failure was due to a technical fault or glitch on the common portal. The petitioner was also required to submit a certificate or recommendation issued by the GST Council in this regard. If these three requirements were met, the offline GST TRAN-1 form would be accepted if filed by December 31, 2019, or an extended period. The petitioner was given 15 days to apply to the GST Council for the requisite certificate, and the Council was to issue it within three weeks if the petitioner's assertion was found correct.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Accurate Engineering, through its proprietor, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court challenging an action or order by the GST authorities. The respondent revenue department submitted that the case was covered by a previous judgment of the same High Court in Jodhpur Truck Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. The petitioner's counsel contended that a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court had ruled differently after the Jodhpur Truck judgment. The High Court considered the Punjab & Haryana High Court's judgment to be persuasive but not binding.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present writ petition is covered by the High Court's previous decision in Jodhpur Truck Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15221/2019)? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that a subsequent judgment by a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court had taken a different view, implying that the Jodhpur Truck judgment might not be universally applicable or that their case presented distinguishing factors. They relied on this later judgment for their position. Respondent's Argument: The respondent revenue department contended that the case was squarely covered by the High Court's own prior decision in Jodhpur Truck Pvt. Ltd., suggesting that the petitioner's case should be disposed of in terms of that precedent. They did not rely on any specific provisions or authorities beyond referencing the prior judgment.