The instant petition is regarding seeking permission for revision of Form GST TRAN – 1 in conformity with the returns filed under the existing laws that stand repealed by the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 (CGST).
The High Court directed the Petitioner to file a fresh representation annexing all the judgments cited for filing GST TRAN-1 within a period of seven days before the Jurisdictional Commissioner. In case, the Petitioner files representation within the aforesaid period, the Jurisdictional Commissioner is directed to decide the same in the light of various judgments passed by the High Courts and the Apex Court and pass a reasoned and speaking order.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
Shri Prashant Sharma, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Vivek Khedkar, Assistant Solicitor General, for the respondent No.1 on advance notice.
Shri M.P.S.Raghuvanshi, Addl.A.G for the respondents/State on advance notice.
Heard on the question of admission.
By filing this petition, the petitioner has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents to allow it to avail the short transitioning of input tax credit (“ITC) by either updating electronic credit ledger at their back end, in accord with the details of credit submitted by the petitioner or allowing them to revise form GST TRAN-1, in conformity with the returns filed under the existing laws that stand repealed by the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 (“CGST”).
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner firm is sole proprietorship firm engaged in the business of lubricants. The GST was brought into force with effect from 1st July, 2017. GST replaced various indirect taxes in India. The petitioner firm also got itself registered under the GST Portal and GST No.23AEIPJ9886MJZP. The authorities with a view to shift from the old regime to the new regime and for doing smooth transaction, framed certain provisions under the GST Act. The provisions prescribe for utilization of input tax credit accumulated under the earlier tax law in the new taxation regime.
It is further submitted that the entire tax regime had itself watershed moment with the advent of GST. GST laws framed by the Parliament and State Legislature recognized the fact that the taxpayer had ITC under the existing laws and provide for elaborate transitional arrangement to save pending as well as the future claims relating to existing law made before it or after appointed day. In order to achieve this objective, GST laws permit registered persons to migrate the amount of CENVAT credit that was carried forward in the returns under the existing laws in the electronic credit ledger under GST laws. The petitioner was facing technical difficulty in uploading the form, then TRAN-I, therefore, the petitioner relentlessly raised the grievance before the respondent authorities but of no avail. Various representations were submitted to the authorities which are marked as Annexure P/3. The grievance raised by the petitioner fell on deaf ears and no action was taken by the respondent authorities.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the issue involved is squarely covered by the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, reported in, 2019 TIOL-2519HC-P&H-GST. The SLP was filed against aforesaid decisions but the same was also dismissed. Learned counsel has further relied upon the judgment rendered by Delhi High Court in the case of Brand Equities Treaties Ltd and Others Vs. Union of India reported as 2020 TIOL-900-HC-Del. GST wherein, following the decisions of P&H High Court and various other High Courts, the respective petitioners were permitted to file TRAN-I before or after appointed day. The case of petitioner is covered with the aforesaid decisions.
Taking into considering the fact that the issue has been decided by various High Courts as well as by the Apex Court, this court deems it proper to direct the petitioner to file a fresh representation annexing all the judgments cited before this court within a period of seven days before the Jurisdictional Commissioner from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. In case, the petitioner files representation within the aforesaid period, the Jurisdictional Commissioner is directed to decide the same in the light of various judgments passed by the High Courts and the Apex Court and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four weeks thereafter. Decision taken be communicated to the petitioner forthwith.
With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of.
CC as per rules.