Case Law Details
Heritage Lifestyles and Developers And Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Bombay High Court)
This is a case, where admittedly Petitioner could not file GST TRAN-1 on or before 27.12.2017 but had manually applied for GST TRAN-1 on 7.5.2018 as per Circular dated 03.04.2018 within the timeline as per the date extended by this Court. Also admittedly the Respondents have found the Petitioner to be eligible for credit amounting to Rs. 78,62,466/-. But the credit for the same has been denied as the ITGRC found that the Petitioner has not tried to save or submit or file TRAN-1 before 27.12.2017. We are informed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner which is not controverted by the learned Sr. counsel for the Respondents that this information of rejection of the Petitioner’s application for manual GST TRAN-1 has not been communicated to the Petitioner despite several reminders/communications from the Petitioner and it is only by way of the affidavit in reply filed to this Petition that the Petitioner has become aware of the rejection.
Be that as it may, it is true that the above circular has been issued keeping in mind cases where difficulties have been faced by a section of tax payers owing to technical glitches on the GST Portal. However, the facts of this case are peculiar in as much as the respondents themselves admitted that the Petitioner is eligible for input tax credit but have rejected the claim because the ITGRC has not approved it saying that the tax payer has neither tried for saving/submitting or filing TRAN-1. There is no further explanation or clarification on this issue by the Respondents except to state the ITGRC description viz. “The tax payer has neither tried for saving/submitting or filing TRAN-1”. Therefore it would be not necessary for us to even deal with the Circular under which the application for manual TRAN-1 has been made. When there is no dispute to the fact that the Petitioner is otherwise eligible for credit of Rs. 78,62,466/- then to deny the benefit of such Input credit merely on technical grounds cannot be justified. Merely on technical ground an admitted input credit is sought to be denied to the Petitioner. That according to us would be wholly unfair and a travesty of justice. It is in these facts and circumstances that we are compelled to invoke our writ jurisdiction in this case.
In view of our above discussion, as admittedly in this case the Respondents have found the Petitioner to be eligible for input credit amounting to Rs. 78,62,466/-, in our view the finding of the ITGRC would in the face of the admission by the Respondents to the amount of credit, would be a mere technicality which cannot come in the way of substantial justice.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
If anyone were to ASK , – is the ISSUE conclusively settled , the answer, it appears, is an emphatic N(nnn)O !
For MORE look through say, – >
https://taxguru.in/goods-and-service-tax/gstr-1-amended-after-expiry-time-condonation-possible-hc.html?
Again,the larger question often arising , – is or is not this a matter amenable to ‘rectification’ later as a ‘mistake apparent from the record’,- if applied for or suo motu, = in a case in which the ITC has or has not been allowed at the first level for any reason ? 🤨
courtesy