GST portal must reopen for revised FORM GST TRAN-1 submission despite consultant's technical error under Section 140

Chhattisgarh HC dismissed appeal challenging Single Judge's direction to open GST portal for revised FORM GST TRAN-1 submission. Petitioner's tax consultant mistakenly entered NIL instead of eligible CENVAT credit amount, causing form to freeze without edit option. Court held transitional credit rights under Section 140 Central GST Act are indefeasible and cannot be curtailed by procedural technicalities or administrative instructions. Relying on SC precedents in Filco Trade Centre and Dai Ichi Karkaria, court ruled revenue authorities must act reasonably and fairly, not depriving assessees of legitimate benefits. Technical errors should not deny registered assessees their rightful transitional credit claims.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal question considered was whether the learned Single Judge was justified in directing the relevant respondents to reopen the GST portal, enabling the writ petitioner to submit a revised FORM GST TRAN-1 in accordance with Rule 120A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents

The case revolves around the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, particularly Rule 120A, which allows for the revision of FORM GST TRAN-1. The Supreme Court's decision in Filco Trade Centre Private Limited was pivotal, as it directed the reopening of the GST portal for a specific period to address technical glitches faced by taxpayers in filing transitional credit forms.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning

The Court emphasized that the authorities under the Act must act reasonably and fairly, as established in Unichem Laboratories Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise. The Court found that the writ petitioner was unfairly denied the opportunity to revise FORM GST TRAN-1 due to a technical error made by the Tax Consultant. The Court noted that the circular dated 9-9-2022, which restricted further revisions, could not override the statutory provision allowing revisions under Rule 120A.

Key Evidence and Findings

The writ petitioner had mistakenly entered NIL in the TRAN-1 form due to an error by the Tax Consultant, which was supported by an affidavit. Despite representations to the authorities, the petitioner was not allowed to rectify the error before the deadline set by the Supreme Court's order.

Application of Law to Facts

The Court applied the principle that the right to claim transitional credit is a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution, as recognized in Siddharth Enterprises v. Nodal Officer. It held that the petitioner's right to transitional credit could not be denied due to a procedural error, especially when the Supreme Court had provided a window for corrections.

Treatment of Competing Arguments

The appellants argued that the writ petitioner was negligent in submitting the form and that allowing revisions would lead to an endless process. However, the Court found that the petitioner's right to transitional credit, as per the statutory provisions and Supreme Court directives, outweighed the procedural lapse. The Court rejected the appellants' reliance on the circular, emphasizing the statutory right to revise under Rule 120A.

Conclusions

The Court concluded that the learned Single Judge correctly directed the reopening of the GST portal for the petitioner to revise the TRAN-1 form, ensuring the petitioner could claim the transitional credit to which it was entitled.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court reaffirmed the principle that authorities must act fairly and reasonably, ensuring taxpayers are not deprived of benefits due to procedural errors. It held that the right to transitional credit is constitutional and cannot be overridden by administrative circulars.

Core Principles Established

The judgment reinforced the principle that statutory rights, such as the right to transitional credit, are indefeasible and cannot be curtailed by procedural technicalities or administrative instructions. It emphasized that the statutory provision allowing for revisions (Rule 120A) takes precedence over conflicting administrative circulars.

Final Determinations on Each Issue

The Court dismissed the writ appeal, upholding the Single Judge's order to allow the writ petitioner to revise FORM GST TRAN-1. It directed the relevant authorities to facilitate the revision, ensuring the petitioner could claim the transitional credit.

---