Case Law Details
Anil Kumar Singh Vs Union of India and 5 others (Allahabad High Court)
Summary: In Anil Kumar Singh v. Union of India [Writ Tax No. 1901 of 2024], the Allahabad High Court addressed a procedural gap in the GST system, issuing a notice to the Revenue Department. The petitioner’s Form GST TRAN-1, claiming transitional credit of INR 30,20,268.52, was rejected due to a clerical error in filing the credit under the wrong column. Following the rejection, the petitioner attempted to appeal but faced a hurdle as the GST portal lacked an option for filing appeals related to Form TRAN-1. Manual appeals were also not entertained, leaving the petitioner with no viable remedy. Despite the authority noting the petitioner could request the Commissioner to allow a revision of Form TRAN-1, this request to reopen the portal was not acted upon. Aggrieved, the petitioner sought redressal through a writ petition. The High Court, while relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Bharti Airtel Ltd., recognized the lack of procedural options as a critical concern and issued a notice to the Revenue Department for their response. The case underscores systemic inadequacies in the GST framework, particularly the portal’s inability to address clerical errors effectively, highlighting the need for more inclusive digital solutions to ensure fairness in GST compliance.
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Anil Kumar Singh v. Union of India [Writ Tax No. 1901 of 2024 dated November 08, 2024] issued notice to the Revenue Department where the Assessee’s Form GST TRAN-1 claiming transitional credit was rejected on ground that transaction credit of Central Excise Duty was filled in wrong Column and further petitioner could not file appeal on there was no option on GST portal.
Facts:
Mr. Anil Kumar Singh (“the Petitioner”) had wrongly filed TRAN-1, the claim amounting to INR 30,30,368.53/-. He was served Order dated February 24, 2023 [“the Impugned Order”] whereby TRAN-1 claiming transaction credit of Central Excise Duty by the Petitioner was rejected because it was filed in the wrong column.
The Petitioner after passing of the Impugned Order, attempted filing of the appeal but it was claimed that as there was no option to file an appeal of FORM TRAN-1 on the GST portal and manual appeal by the appellate authority is not acceptable, the same could not be filed.
Further, though the Authority observed about the option to request the Commissioner to allow to revise his FORM TRAN-1, the request made in this regard qua opening the portal was not entertained.
Hence, aggrieved by the circumstances, the present writ petition was filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad.
Issue:
Whether FORM GST TRAN-1 be rejected on the ground that transaction credit of Central Excise Duty was filed in wrong Column?
Held:
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Writ Tax No. 1901 of 2024 held as under:
- Relied on, the case of Union of India v. Bharti Airtel Ltd. 2021 (54) G.S.T.L. 257 (SC), where High Court issued a notice to Revenue as there was no option on the GST portal to filed appeal where transitional credit was rejected. However, in the present case, no submission has been made on the plea raised pertaining to availability of credit to the tune of INR 30,20,268.52. Hence, Notice was issued to the Revenue Department.
Our Comments:
The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad’s notice to the Revenue Department underscores a critical issue in GST compliance. The lack of an option on the GST portal to appeal against rejection of transitional credit, as seen in Anil Kumar Singh’s case, raises significant concerns about procedural fairness. The rejection of the Petitioner’s claim for credit due to a clerical error, compounded by the inability to file an appeal, highlights the need for a more robust and inclusive digital framework within the GST system. This step by the High Court is a crucial move towards ensuring justice and addressing systemic inadequacies in the GST portal.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, aggrieved of order dated 24.02.2023 (Annexure-1), whereby TRANS-1 claiming transaction credit of Central Excise Duty by the petitioner has been rejected, as apparently the same was filed in wrong Column, i.e. 6(A) instead of Column 5(A)/7(A).
2. Submissions have been made that for wrong filing of TRANS-1, the claim amounting to Rs.30,20,268.52 has been rejected by inter alia observing that the petitioner has an option to request the Commissioner to allow to revise his TRANS-1.
3. The petitioner after passing of the order, attempted filing of the appeal but it is claimed that as there is no option to file an appeal of TRANS-1 on the GST portal and manual appeal by the appellate authority is not acceptable, the same could not be filed. Further though the authority in Annexure-1 observed about the option to request the Commissioner to allow to revise his TRANS-1, the request made in this regard qua opening the portal was not entertained.
4. Copy of the petition has been served on the counsel representing the respondents, who have raised objection about the delay in filing the petition as the order impugned was passed on 24.02.2023 and the petition has been filed on 23.10.2024 without any explanation in this regard. On the merit of the case, reliance was placed in Union of India vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd. : 2021 (54) G.S.T.L. 257 (SC), however, presently no submission has been made on the plea raised pertaining to availability of credit to the tune of Rs.30,20,268.52.
5. In view of above fact situation, issue notice to respondents.
6. As the respondents are duly represented, no need to issue fresh notice.
7. Counter affidavit be filed within a period of four weeks.
*****
(Author can be reached at [email protected])
Author Bio
