2019 (4) TMI 302 - HC - GST

Court directs correction of GST TRAN-1 Form error, emphasizes IT grievance redressal mechanism

The court directed the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Nodal Officer for correction of an error in the GST TRAN-1 Form, allowing for revision ... Revision of FORM GST TRAN-1 - Section 172 of the Act, Rule 120A of the CG & ST Rules 2017 - disentitlement of the credit to the petitioner defeating the object of Transitional arrangements - It is the contention of the petitioner is facing difficulty in implementing Section 140 of the Act, 2017, it is necessary to invoke Section 172 to enable the petitioner to avail the transitional arrangements for input tax credit and the same ought to have been considered by the respondent–Authorities. Held that:- Rule 117 of the Rules provides for submitting a declaration electronically in FORM GST TRAN-1 within 90 days from the appointed day on the common portal specified therein, separately, the amount of input tax credit to which the registered person is entitled to take input tax credit under Section 140. The Commissioner is empowered to extend the period of 90 days by a further period not exceeding 90 days for submitting the declaration electronically in FORM GST TRAN-1 in terms of Rule 117[1A]. A reading of this Rule suggests that it relates to filing of the declaration electronically in FORM GST TRAN-1 for the first time. Subsequent to amendment to Rule 117 by inserting sub-rule 1A, the time period specified for filing FORM GST TRAN-1 has been extended for further period not beyond 31.03.2019, in respect of registered person who could not submit the said declaration by the due date on account of technical difficulties on the common portal and in respect of whom, the Council has made recommendations. Section 172 of the Act contemplates about the removal of difficulties wherein correction/rectification/revision of the FORM GST TRAN-1 can also be addressed on general or special basis, taking into account the ground realities qua effective implementation of Section 140 of the Act. Even on the technical glitches arising out of the petitioner/assesse’s inadvertence requires to be addressed by the Nodal Officers appointed in terms of Circular instructions dated 03.04.2018. The object and purpose of the transitional arrangements made under Section 140 of the Act requires to be achieved to its logical end. Hence, keeping open all the rights and contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate for this Court to direct the petitioner to approach the Nodal Officer appointed for the State of Karnataka in terms of circular dated 03.04.2018. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Nodal Officer and the Nodal Officer is directed to consider the grievances of the petitioner in accordance with law. Issues Involved:1. Correction of error in GST TRAN-1 Form.2. Application of Section 172 and Rule 120A of the CGST Rules, 2017.3. Reference to judgments of other High Courts.4. Authority of the Commissioner to extend the period for filing/revising GST TRAN-1.5. IT grievance redressal mechanism for technical glitches on the GST Portal.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Correction of error in GST TRAN-1 Form:The petitioner was aggrieved by the respondent's refusal to allow correction of an error in the GST TRAN-1 Form, which resulted in the non-transfer of eligible credit from the earlier indirect tax regime to the GST regime. Despite filing the original and revised forms within the stipulated time, an inadvertent omission due to a change in ERP software led to the error. The petitioner sought to correct this by approaching the Jurisdictional Officer and the Nodal Officer, but the request was denied on the grounds that the non-transition was not due to a technical glitch on the GST Portal.2. Application of Section 172 and Rule 120A of the CGST Rules, 2017:The petitioner contended that under Section 172 of the Act, Rule 120A could be relaxed to allow revision of the GST TRAN-1 Form. The petitioner relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in O/E/N India Ltd. v. Union of India, which suggested that Rule 120A could be relaxed in terms of Section 172, permitting multiple revisions of the declaration in FORM GST TRAN-1.3. Reference to judgments of other High Courts:The petitioner referenced the Bombay High Court's judgment in O/E/N India Ltd., which dealt with a similar issue of typographical errors in the TRAN-1 Form and suggested that Section 172 could be invoked for rectification. Additionally, the petitioner cited the Madras High Court's judgment in M/s. Calibre Industries, which directed the appointment of Nodal Officers to address IT-related grievances.4. Authority of the Commissioner to extend the period for filing/revising GST TRAN-1:The respondent argued that Rule 120A allows the Commissioner to extend the period for filing/revising the GST TRAN-1 Form only once. The petitioner, having already availed this opportunity, was not entitled to further revisions. Rule 117(1A) was also discussed, which allows the Commissioner to extend the filing period due to technical difficulties, but this did not apply to the petitioner's case as the issue was not due to a technical glitch.5. IT grievance redressal mechanism for technical glitches on the GST Portal:The court noted the IT grievance redressal mechanism established by the Government of India through circular instructions dated 03.04.2018, which addresses grievances due to technical glitches on the GST Portal. The court emphasized the importance of achieving the object and purpose of transitional arrangements under Section 140 of the Act.Conclusion:The court concluded that the petitioner's grievance, even if arising from inadvertence, should be addressed by the Nodal Officers as per the circular instructions. The court directed the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Nodal Officer, who was instructed to consider the petitioner's grievances in accordance with the law and provide an opportunity for a hearing. The Nodal Officer was to expedite the resolution of the issue within four weeks from the date of the certified copy of the order. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, ensuring the petitioner could seek redressal through the appropriate channels.