Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Ingersoll-Rand Technologies And Services Private Limited Vs UOI (Allahabad High Court)
Appeal Number : Writ Tax No. 1120 of 2019
Date of Judgement/Order : 21/11/2019
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Ingersoll-Rand Technologies And Services Private Limited Vs UOI (Allahabad High Court)

A conjoint reading of the Rule 117 and 120A of CGST Rules, 2017 clearly reveals that every registered person who has submitted a declaration electronically in FORM G.S.T. T.R.A.N-1 within the period specified in Rule 117 or Rule 118 or Rule 119 or Rule 120 is allowed to revise such declaration once and submit the revised declaration in FORM G.S.T. T.R.A.N-1 electronically on the common portal, “within the period specified in the said rules or such further period as may be extended by the Commissioner in this behalf.” This further period – as may be extended by the Commissioner – which is provided under Rule 120-A, therefore, cannot go beyond the time-frame provided under Rule 117 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods & Services Tax Rules, 2017. The period of extension has been statutorily circumscribed at 90 days and that too is possible only on the recommendation of the Council.

If we are to assume that the Commissioner while exercising his powers under Rule 120-A of the Uttar Pradesh Goods & Services Tax Rules, 2017 can extend the time period for the purpose of filing of a revised declaration by a registered person in FORM G.S.T. T.R.A.N-1 for an unlimited or an indefinite period, it would simply mean that any registered person can avail the benefit of filing a revised declaration in FORM G.S.T. T.R.A.N-1 for an unlimited or indefinite period of time after submitting a declaration electronically in FORM G.S.T. T.R.A.N-1 under Rule 117 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods & Services Tax Rules, 2017. That surely could not have been the purpose and intention of the legislature.

In such circumstances as stated above, a writ in the nature of mandamus, as prayed for, cannot be granted by this Court. However, it is open to the Council to take a decision in the matter in the light of the writ petitioner’s letter dated 28th March, 2019.

FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031