TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 1041
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ral Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (briefly 'the CGST Act' hereinafter). 5. It is stated that petitioner in W.P.No.14987 of 2021 had Central Value Added Tax (CENVAT) credit to the tune of Rs. 4,36,419.00 (Rupees four lakhs, thirty six thousand, four hundred and nineteen only) in its account as on 30.06.2017. Petitioner in W.P.No.14998 of 2021 had CENVAT credit to the tune of Rs. 5,39,568.00 (Rupees five lakhs, thirty nine thousand, five hundred and sixty eight only) in its account as on 30.06.2017. 5.1. In view of Section 140 of the CGST Act, read with Rule 117 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 (briefly 'the CGST Rules' hereinafter), petitioners were entitled to carry forward the above credits when the Goods and Service Tax (GST) regime came into force. 5.2. Petitioners filed TRAN -l form in both the cases on 26.12.2017, which is stated to be within the period specified for submission of such form. It is stated that initially the due date for filing TRAN-l form was 27.12.2017, which was subsequently extended to 31.03.2020. It is further stated that due to inadvertence, in the column under the heading 'Eligible duties paid on such inputs', petitioners entered '0'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., and contends that sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioners for rectification of TRAN-1 forms, but petitioners did not file TRAN - 2 forms by 31.03.2018. Belatedly, petitioners filed two representations. He submits that GST Council has taken a considered decision to not accede to the request of the petitioners. If at this stage, prayer of the petitioners is allowed, it may open the flood gates of similar claims. He has tried to distinguish the cases relied upon by the petitioners, particularly, the Karnataka High Court (2 supra), in which the tax payer had admitted to filing rectified TRAN -1, but the same could not be filed due to error generated in the GST network. Contending that there is no merit in the writ petitions, he therefore, seeks dismissal of the same. 9. In his reply, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating his contentions made earlier, submits that the requirement of filing TRAN-2 is for a different purpose. It enables a registered person not registered under the existing law, to avail of input tax credit of goods held in stock on the appointed day in respect of which he is not in possession of any documents evidencing payment of central ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d day was 28.06.2017. As per subrule (1) of Rule 117, the TRAN - 1 form had to be filed within ninety days from the appointed day. Under the first proviso this period could be extended by ninety days i.e., up to 27.12.2017. However, from the counter affidavit of the respondents it is evident that the due date for filing of TRAN-1 form was extended from 27.12.2017 to 31.03.2020. 14. The situation which is evident in the two writ petitions is that, according to the petitioners, they made an inadvertent error in not claiming the benefit of input tax credit while filing the TRAN - 1 form. There is no provision for rectification of such mistake made in the TRAN - 1 form. Therefore, they filed representations dated 04.03.2020 requesting respondent No.1 to allow them to rectify such inadvertent error. The representations were filed within the extended period for filing of TRAN - 1 form i.e., 31.03.2020. 15. We find that by the CGST (7th amendment) Rules, 2017, Rule 120A has been inserted in the CGST Rules. It provides that every registered person, who has filed FORM GST TRAN - 1 within the time period, may revise such declaration and submit the revised declaration in FORM GST TRAN - 1 e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rat High Court has been appealed against by the Revenue before the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court has granted stay. 20. We have carefully analyzed the provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 117 and sub-rule (4) of Rule 117. While the former deals with filing of TRAN -1 form, the latter deals with filing of TRAN - 2 form. TRAN - 1 form was to be filed by a registered person who was entitled to take credit of input tax under Section 140 by making an electronic declaration in TRAN - 1 form. On the other hand, the person registered under GST law, but not registered under the existing law (earlier law), could avail benefit of input tax credit in respect of goods held in stock on the appointed day for which he did not have any documentary evidence to show payment of central excise duty. To deal with such a situation, submission of Form TRAN -2 was provided. Therefore, the objective of both TRAN -1 and TRAN -2 forms are distinct. It cannot be said that filing of TRAN - 2 form was meant for rectification of mistakes in TRAN - 1 form. Had that been so, the legislature would not have carried out the amendment leading to insertion of Rule 120A, which provides for revision of TRAN -1 form w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on" of Francis Bennion, whereafter it was quoted therefrom as under: "Unnecessary technicality: Modern Courts seek to cut down technicalities attendant upon a statutory procedure where these cannot be shown to be necessary to the fulfillment of the purpose of the legislation." 22.4. Finally Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to grant permission to the appellant for adjustment against taxes due for the respective years on refund. 23. This decision was usefully referred to by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in HERITAGE LIFESTYLES AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA 2021 (1) Bom CR 345. That was a case where petitioner could not file GST TRAN-I on or before 27.12.2017 but had manually applied for GST TRAN-I on 07.5.2018 within the extended time line. Though respondents had found the petitioner to be eligible for credit, the same was, however, denied on the ground that petitioner did not file TRAN-I on or before 27.12.2017. In the facts and circumstances of that case, Bombay High Court took the view that when there was no dispute to the fact that petitioner was otherwise eligible for credit the....