TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court allows extension of time limit under Rule 117 of CGST Rules for filing/revision of Form TRAN-1</h1> <h3>M/s. Annapoorna Motors, Versus The Union Of India, The Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs, New Delhi, The CGST Nodal Officer (ITGRC), The Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax, Bellary</h3> M/s. Annapoorna Motors, Versus The Union Of India, The Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs, New Delhi, The CGST Nodal Officer (ITGRC), The ... Issues:Petitioner seeks writs to strike down various provisions of CGST Rules and Circulars, requesting for revision filing of TRAN-1, extension of time limit, and another opportunity to file Form TRAN 1. Respondents contest the petitioner's claims, arguing against the need for revision and lack of evidence of attempted filing. Court examines the legality of the rules and circulars in light of the transitional nature of the GST regime and the rights of the petitioners to carry forward unutilized credit.Analysis:The petitioner requested writs to challenge specific provisions of CGST Rules and Circulars, including the term 'technical difficulties on the common portal' in Rule 117, imposition of conditions for compliance, and the authority to prescribe time limits. The Court analyzed the legality of these provisions in relation to Section 140 of the CGST Act, emphasizing the transitional nature of the GST regime and the importance of not denying legitimate rights based on technicalities. The Court found in favor of the petitioners, allowing the extension of the time limit under Rule 117 and directing respondents to permit filing/revision of TRAN-1 by a specified date.The Court highlighted the distinction between registered persons who failed to file TRAN-1 by the deadline and those who uploaded with errors intending to revise. It emphasized the absence of a specific time limit for revision filing under Section 140 of the Act and the introduction of Rules allowing for such revisions. The Court rejected arguments against permitting revision filing, citing the need to uphold the petitioners' rights to carry forward unutilized credit and the flexibility provided by Section 172 for addressing difficulties in implementing the Act.In response to the appeal filed against the initial decision, the Division Bench confirmed the ruling, emphasizing the transitional nature of the CGST provisions and the need for a beneficial approach towards taxpayers to facilitate filings and credit claims. The Court underscored the importance of providing adequate opportunities to taxpayers to comply with the new procedures and obtain entitled benefits, warning against depriving assesses of benefits on technical grounds that could lead to tax evasion.The Court concluded that the petitioner's request for an opportunity to upload TRAN-1 forms for transactions predating the GST regime should be granted, emphasizing that the filing itself does not automatically entitle the assessee to credit but is subject to scrutiny. The Court issued a Certiorari to quash the decision denying another opportunity to file TRAN-1 and a Mandamus directing the authorities to enable the petitioner to upload necessary forms or submit hard copies for processing, with a reminder that authorities have the power to verify the details provided.
TaxTMI 