2021 (10) TMI 839 - HC - GST

High Court clarifies GST transitional credit rules, orders compliance, Nodal Officer's personal appearance

M/s. Siddharth Enterprises Through Partner Mahesh Liladhar Tibdewal Versus The Nodal Officer

The High Court addressed non-compliance with court directions regarding filing declarations for transitional credit under GST. Despite the judgment ... Maintainability of review application - review applications came to be dismissed for non prosecution - non-compliance with the directions issued - HELD THAT:- We fail to understand that what is now left to be pointed out. We are disturbed by the fact that its been more than two years but our directions have not been complied with. All that is required to be done is to open the portal and allow the original writ applicants to file declaration in Form GST TRAN-1 and GST TRAN-2 so as to enable them to claim the transitional credit of the eligible duties in respect of the inputs held in stock on the appointed day in terms of Section 140(3) of the Act. The Nodal Officer, D/5, E-Governance Branch, Rajyakar Bhavan, Ashram Road, Ahmedbad is directed to personally remain present before this Court on 27.10.2021 at 11:00 a.m. - Post these matters on 27.10.2021. Issues: Non-compliance with court directions regarding filing of declarations for transitional credit under GST and pending review applications.Analysis:1. The High Court noted that a common judgment was delivered on 06.09.2019, allowing all the writ applications related to permitting the filing of declarations for claiming transitional credit under GST. The judgment clarified that the due date for claiming transitional credit should be viewed as procedural and not mandatory.2. Subsequently, the Nodal Officer filed four review applications against the judgment, which were rejected on 14.02.2020. Despite the court's directions, the authorities had not implemented the judgment for over two years.3. The Union of India also filed review applications against the same judgment, which were dismissed for non-prosecution. Restoration applications were then filed and are pending with the Registry.4. The petitioner highlighted that the judgment in question had been cited and relied upon by various High Courts across the country, with Supreme Court Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) challenging other High Court judgments being dismissed.5. The Court expressed disappointment over the non-compliance with its directions for over two years and emphasized the simple task of allowing the writ applicants to file the required declarations to claim transitional credit under Section 140(3) of the Act.6. Consequently, the Court directed the Nodal Officer to personally appear before the Court on a specified date to ensure compliance with the court's directions. The matters were scheduled for further hearing on the given date, with direct service of the order permitted.