Case Law Details
R.P. Foam Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Allahabad High Court)
In view of the submissions made at the bar and on perusal of the order dated 22.1.2020, it is clear that the rejection of the application is based upon the understanding that the GST TRAN-1 could not be filed on account of technical glitch and thus following the circular no. 39/13/2018-GST dated 3.4.2018, the request was rejected.
Prima facie, the said order does not even take into account the arguments of the petitioners for revision of the GST TRAN-1 FORM. Thus, we set aside the order dated 22.1.2020 with a direction to the respondent no. 3 to hear and decide the application for revision of GST TRAN-1 filed on 24.9.2019. The Commissioner is further directed to decide the delay in filing the revision application in the light of the mandate of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The decision, as directed above, shall be made by the Commissioner within a period of four weeks from the date of the filing of the application alongwith a copy of this order.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
The petitioner claims to be a Company engaged in manufacture of P.U. foam sheets and P.U. mattress and is registered with the tax authorities. The petitioner further claims that the petitioner is entitled to the input tax credit in terms of the provisions of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that manner to claim transitional credit is prescribed under Rule 117 of CGST Rules and Rule 117 of the U.P. GST Rules. It is argued that in terms of the said Rules, the credit can be taken within a period of 90 days by submitting a FORM GST TRAN- 1, however, the proviso to the Rule 117 (1) of the CGST Rules empowers the Commissioner to extend the period of 90 days.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the date of submission in the case of petitioner of TRAN-1 was extended vide Order No. 3/17 dated 21.09.2017, Order No. 7/17 dated 28.10.2017 and thereafter, by Order No. 9/17 dated 15.11.2017. The petitioner some how could file its GST TRAN-1 on 28.7.2018 on account of technical glitches. It is also the case of the petitioner that the amount indicated in the GST TRAN-1 was erroneously filled and the petitioners omitted to claim Rs. 905,407/- for the Month of June, 2017 and an amount of Rs. 3,64,374/- for the Months of April to June, 2017. Thus a sum of Rs. 12,69,781/- was omitted while filling the FORM GST TRAN-1. It is further argues that in terms of Rule 120-A of the CGST Rules 2017 permit the revision of the declaration made in FORM GST TRAN-1 within the time periods specified, which can be further extended by the Commissioner. It is alleged that the petitioner under wrong legal advise, filed an application for refund of the amount of Rs. 12,69,781/-, which was omitted to be mentioned in FORM GST TRAN-1, in fact, the petitioner should have resorted to amending the declaration under Rule 120-A instead of filing an application for refund, however, as the refund application was under wrong legal advise, the same stood rejected on 22.4.2019 solely on the ground that there is no provision for refund as claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner further realizing its mistake, moved an application for revision of FORM GST TRAN-1.
The petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Writ Tax No. 381 of 2019 (M/s Jai Laxmi Cement Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.) to press that the authorities ought to have considered the request for revision of GST TRAN-1 and the delay should have been condoned by the Commissioner, however, the respondent no. 4 passed an order on 22.1.2020 rejecting the request solely on the ground of the circular dated 3.4.2018 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the said circular dated 3.4.2018 relates to the assessees who could not file their GST TRAN-1 due to technical glitches whereas in the case of the petitioner, the GST TRAN-1 had already been filed and he only wanted to revise the said declaration under GST TRAN-1 and the power to condone the delay vested with the Commissioner.
Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand argues that if the matter is remanded, the respondent no. 3 shall consider the matter afresh.
In view of the submissions made at the bar and on perusal of the order dated 22.1.2020, it is clear that the rejection of the application is based upon the understanding that the GST TRAN-1 could not be filed on account of technical glitch and thus following the circular no. 39/13/2018-GST dated 3.4.2018, the request was rejected.
Prima facie, the said order does not even take into account the arguments of the petitioners for revision of the GST TRAN-1 FORM. Thus, we set aside the order dated 22.1.2020 with a direction to the respondent no. 3 to hear and decide the application for revision of GST TRAN-1 filed on 24.9.2019. The Commissioner is further directed to decide the delay in filing the revision application in the light of the mandate of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The decision, as directed above, shall be made by the Commissioner within a period of four weeks from the date of the filing of the application alongwith a copy of this order.
The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the said order.
Copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court shall be treated/accepted as certified copy of this order.
