2020 (9) TMI 163 - HC - GST

Petition Against CGST Rule 117 Dismissed; Petitioner Can Seek Transitional Credit with GST Council Recommendation.

Riddhi Siddhi Home Studios (Sanju) Versus Union Of India, Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, Commissioner, CGST Commissionerate, Commissioner, RGST, Commercial Taxes Department, GST Council Through Its Chairperson Union Finance Minister, Goods And Service Tax Network

The HC dismissed the petition challenging Rule 117 of the CGST Rules, citing a prior judgment. The petitioner was granted liberty to apply to the GST ... Transitional Credit - Form TRAN-1 in compliance of Section 140 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - time limitation - HELD THAT:- Issue decided in the case of OBELISK COMPOSITE TECHNOLOGY LLP, VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE [2019 (12) TMI 1162 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] where it was held that considering the fact that the Union of India and the Finance Department have extended the period contemplated under Rule 1A of Rule 117 till 31st December, 2019, we grant liberty to the petitioner to make an application before GST Council (through Standing Counsel, who is further requested to hand over the same to the jurisdictional officer) for forwarding the same to the GST Council to issue requisite certificate of recommendation alongwith requisite particulars, evidence and a certified copy of the order instantly and such decision be taken forthwith. Accordingly, liberty is granted to the petitioner to make an application before GST Council through Standing Counsel, who is further requested to hand over the same to the jurisdictional officer for forwarding the same to the GST Council to issue requisite certificate of recommendation alongwith requisite particulars, evidence and a certified copy of the order instantly and such decision be taken forthwith and if the petitioner’s assertion is found to be correct, the GST Council shall issue necessary recommendation to the Commissioner to enable the petitioner to get the benefit of CENVAT credit within the stipulated time as stipulated by the Union of India. Petition disposed off. Issues:1. Petitioner seeking permission to file Form TRAN-1 for availing Transitional Credit.2. Challenge to Rule 117 of CGST Rules regarding the last date to file TRAN-1.3. Prayer for revival of the facility of filing TRAN-1 on the common portal.4. Controversy similar to a previous judgment involving Obelisk Composite Technology LLP.Analysis:1. The petitioner sought permission to file Form TRAN-1 to avail Transitional Credit under Section 140 of the CGST Act. The prayer was to enable the petitioner to claim eligible duties and credit them in the relevant ledger account. The court referred to a previous judgment where a similar prayer was made by another party, and it was decided that the challenge to the constitutional validity of Rule 117 was no longer res integra. The court granted liberty to the petitioner to make an application before the GST Council through the Standing Counsel for forwarding to the jurisdictional officer to issue the necessary recommendation for availing the benefit of CENVAT credit within the stipulated time.2. The challenge to Rule 117 of the CGST Rules was raised, questioning the last date to file TRAN-1 and its compliance procedure. The court noted that the Union of India had extended the last date for submitting GST TRAN-1 until 31st December 2019. The court referred to a judgment where a similar challenge was dismissed, and based on this, rejected the prayer challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 117. However, the court allowed the petitioner to apply through the GST Council for the necessary recommendation to avail the transitional credit within the extended deadline.3. The petitioner also prayed for the revival of the facility of filing TRAN-1 on the common portal. The court considered the submissions made by the State and noted that the last date for submitting TRAN-1 had been extended by the Union of India. The court directed the petitioner to make an application before the GST Council through the Standing Counsel for forwarding to the jurisdictional officer to obtain the necessary recommendation for availing the CENVAT credit within the extended deadline.4. The controversy in the present writ petition was found to be similar to a previous judgment involving Obelisk Composite Technology LLP. Therefore, the court decided to dispose of the present petition in terms of the decision rendered in the previous case. The petitioner was granted liberty to apply before the GST Council through the Standing Counsel for forwarding to the jurisdictional officer to obtain the necessary recommendation for availing the benefit of CENVAT credit within the stipulated time as extended by the Union of India.