2019 (11) TMI 471 - HC - GST

Steel trader wins right to claim transitional credit under GST Act, court orders respondents to address technical glitches

M/s. Arora & Co. Versus Union Of India & Ors.

The court granted relief to the petitioner, a steel pipes trader, allowing them to file a declaration in form GST Tran 1 to claim transitional credit of ... Filing of declaration in form GST Tran 1 - transitional credit - vires of Rule 117(1) & (1A) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 - time limitation - CBIC Circular No.39/13/2018-GST dated 03.04.2018 - HELD THAT:- The nature of reliefs sought in the present petition and the facts disclosed herein is fully covered by the decision of this Court in M/S. BLUE BIRD PURE PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2019 (7) TMI 1102 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein the Court had directed the respondents to either open the online portal or to enable the petitioner to file the rectified TRAN-1 electronically or accept the same manually. The factual position in the present case is not any different and thus, the present petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to either open the online portal so as to enable the petitioner to file the Form TRAN-1 electronically, or to accept the same manually on or before 20.11.2019 - petition disposed off. Issues:1. Petitioner seeking writ of mandamus to file declaration in form GST Tran 1 for transitional credit.2. Petitioner challenging time limit to file Form TRAN 1 as ultra vires.3. Petitioner claiming technical glitches prevented timely filing of Form TRAN 1.4. Respondent rejecting petitioner's representation for reconsideration.5. Petitioner seeking relief based on previous court decisions.Analysis:Issue 1: The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to file a declaration in form GST Tran 1 to claim transitional credit of excise duty. The petitioner, a steel pipes trader, had a closing stock with excise duty before GST implementation. The court noted the petitioner's entitlement to transition credit under Section 140(3) of the GST Act. The petitioner faced technical glitches preventing timely filing, despite extensions. The court directed the respondents to allow electronic or manual filing by a specified date.Issue 2: The petitioner challenged the time limit to file Form TRAN 1 as ultra vires Section 140(3) of the GST Act. The petitioner argued the time limit was arbitrary and violative of constitutional provisions. The court considered previous decisions and granted relief based on similar cases, directing the respondents to process the claim once the form is filed.Issue 3: The petitioner claimed technical glitches prevented timely filing of Form TRAN 1. Despite extensions and communications with respondents, the petitioner faced rejection due to lack of evidence demonstrating technical issues. The court considered the petitioner's submissions and directed the respondents to enable filing by a specified date, acknowledging the technical challenges faced.Issue 4: The respondent rejected the petitioner's representation for reconsideration, citing lack of new evidence of technical glitches. The Senior Standing Counsel for GST defended the rejection based on system logs showing no errors. The court reviewed the submissions and directed the respondents to process the claim once the form is filed, emphasizing the need to address technical challenges faced by taxpayers.Issue 5: The petitioner sought relief based on previous court decisions granting similar reliefs to parties in comparable situations. The court referenced past judgments and directed the respondents to allow filing of Form TRAN 1 electronically or manually, ensuring processing of the claim in accordance with the law. The petition was disposed of with the specified directions.