High Court dismisses petition over late GST filings, stresses compliance with statutory timelines

The High Court declined to intervene in a case where a private company failed to file necessary declarations for unused CENVAT Credit under the GST regime by the specified deadline. Despite citing technical difficulties, the company did not provide concrete evidence of genuine attempts to file returns electronically within the extended timeframe. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and the need for substantial evidence of sincere efforts to comply with GST requirements. As a result, the petition seeking direction to carry forward the CENVAT Credit balance was dismissed.

---

---

Issues:
- Direction sought to carry forward balance CENVAT Credit available as on 30.06.2017 under GST regime.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a private company engaged in manufacturing, had CENVAT Credit of &8377;8.80 lakhs as of 30.06.2017, the last day of the CENVAT regime. The introduction of GST allowed for the transfer of such credit under section 140 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act. Rule 117 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules specified a time limit for filing returns and making declarations for unused CENVAT Credit, which was extended until 27.12.2017. Despite this, the petitioner failed to file the necessary declarations electronically by the deadline.

2. The petitioner's first communication regarding the issue was on 27.04.2018, citing portal errors as the reason for non-compliance. However, the department responded on 03.05.2018, stating that physical returns were not permissible and that no contact was made during the filing period to address e-filing difficulties. Subsequently, the petition seeking direction was filed.

3. The High Court, after hearing the petitioner's counsel, declined to intervene. While acknowledging that some High Courts had considered technical difficulties in filing returns, the Court emphasized the need to examine each case individually. Without concrete evidence of genuine attempts to file returns despite technical errors, accepting a mere declaration from the petitioner would effectively extend the filing deadline, leading to disorderly outcomes.

4. The Court observed that there was no evidence to suggest continuous efforts by the petitioner to file returns between 01.07.2017 and 27.12.2017. The petitioner's first written communication came four months after the deadline, with no additional proof of sincere attempts to file electronically. In the absence of substantial evidence indicating failed attempts due to technical errors, the Court refused to extend the time limit for the petitioner.

5. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and the necessity of providing substantial evidence of genuine efforts to meet compliance requirements under the GST regime.

---