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

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 Council via the Standing Counsel to secure a recommendation for availing transitional credit, adhering to the extended deadline set by the Union of India.

---

---

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.

---