Case Title | Atria Convergence Technologies Ltd. Vs. Union of India |
Court | Karnataka High Court |
Honourable judges | Justice S.Sujatha |
Citation | 2018 (03) GSTPanacea 47 HC Karnataka WRIT PETITION NO. 55914 OF 2018 (T-RES) |
Judgment Date | 28th March 2018 |
The petitioner, a public limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and also registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CGST Act’), has encountered significant challenges transitioning from the previous tax regime to the current GST regime. Prior to the introduction of GST, the petitioner was registered under the Finance Act, 1994, for Central Excise and Service Tax. As part of the transition to the GST regime, the petitioner submitted FORM GST TRAN-I, which is essential for carrying forward the unutilized Cenvat Credit from the previous tax structure to the GST regime. However, due to an inadvertent error, the petitioner mistakenly transferred a portion of this credit to their branch in Hyderabad, Telangana. This transfer was realized to be incorrect under Section 140(8) of the CGST Act, which stipulates that credit can only be transferred by a centralized registered person to other persons having the same PAN number and must be within the centralized registration obtained under the Finance Act, 1994.
Upon recognizing this mistake, the petitioner decided to file a revised FORM GST TRAN-I to reclaim the credit amount that was mistakenly allocated to the Hyderabad branch. Initially, the petitioner had filed the original FORM GST TRAN-I on 28.08.2017, and upon discovering the error, attempted to revise the form within the stipulated time frame on 27.12.2017. However, the petitioner faced significant technical difficulties as the option to revise the FORM GST TRAN-I was disabled on the GST portal. In response to this issue, the petitioner promptly reached out to the GST help desk via emails sent on 26.12.2017 and 27.12.2017, providing screenshots and detailed descriptions of the problem. Despite these timely notifications, no resolution was provided, and the petitioner continued to face the issue where the GST portal did not accept the revised return post 27.12.2017.
As a result of these persistent technical difficulties and the lack of response from the GST help desk, the petitioner made multiple representations to respondent Nos. 4, 5, and 6, seeking assistance to resolve the issue and enable the correct filing of the revised FORM GST TRAN-I. Despite making four such representations, the petitioner’s efforts were in vain as the issue remained unresolved. Consequently, the petitioner has approached the court with this writ petition, seeking judicial intervention to rectify the technical and procedural issues that have prevented the proper filing and correction of the FORM GST TRAN-I.
In the writ petition, the petitioner contends that the inability to revise the FORM GST TRAN-I has caused significant hardship and has prevented the proper availing of credit which is rightfully theirs under the provisions of the CGST Act. The petitioner emphasizes that despite promptly notifying the authorities and making several attempts to resolve the issue through the prescribed channels, the technical issues on the GST portal were not addressed, thereby necessitating judicial intervention. The petitioner seeks a directive from the court to the respondents to allow the filing or revision of the FORM GST TRAN-I manually or through any other appropriate means. This directive would enable the petitioner to rectify the errors made during the initial submission and properly claim the unutilized Cenvat Credit.
Furthermore, the petitioner highlights the broader systemic issue of technical difficulties faced by taxpayers during the transition to the GST regime. The petitioner argues that such technical glitches and procedural bottlenecks should not prejudice genuine cases and that there should be a robust mechanism in place to address and resolve such issues promptly. The petitioner urges the court to consider not only their specific case but also the need for systemic changes to ensure that other taxpayers do not face similar difficulties. The petitioner’s situation underscores the importance of having a responsive and efficient support system within the GST framework to address technical issues and procedural challenges faced by taxpayers.
In conclusion, the petitioner’s writ petition seeks to rectify the specific error made during the filing of the FORM GST TRAN-I and to highlight the need for systemic improvements in handling technical issues within the GST framework. The petitioner’s case exemplifies the challenges faced by taxpayers during the transition to the new tax regime and calls for judicial intervention to ensure that genuine cases are not unduly prejudiced due to technical and procedural issues. The petitioner seeks a directive to allow the correct filing of the FORM GST TRAN-I and to enable the proper availing of unutilized Cenvat Credit, thereby ensuring compliance with the provisions of the CGST Act and the fair treatment of taxpayers.
Learned counsel Sri. Anil Kumar B., appearing for the petitioner, submits that in terms of Rule 120A of the CGST Rules 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’), the petitioner is entitled to make a revision of the declaration in FORM GST TRAN-I. However, the respondent authorities are not permitting the petitioner to file a revised FORM GST TRAN-I to avail eligible credit. Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that Rule 120A can be invoked by the Commissioner for the extension of the time period specified in Rules 117, 118, 119, and 120 to enable the assessee to revise such declaration once. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record. To analyze the issue at hand, it is apt to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules to arrive at a decision as far as the relief sought in the writ petition is concerned. The petitioner, a public limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘Act’), has faced challenges transitioning from the previous tax regime to the current GST regime. Under the prior Central Excise and Service Tax regime, the petitioner was registered under the Finance Act, 1994. During the transition, the petitioner submitted FORM GST TRAN-I to carry forward unutilized Cenvat Credit. However, due to an error, a portion of the credit was transferred to the petitioner’s branch in Hyderabad, which was realized to be incorrect under Section 140(8) of the Act. Recognizing the mistake, the petitioner attempted to revise FORM GST TRAN-I within the stipulated time on 27.12.2017 but faced technical difficulties as the revision option was disabled on the GST portal. Despite timely notifications to the GST help desk and multiple representations to respondent authorities, the issue remained unresolved, leading to this writ petition. The petitioner contends that the inability to revise FORM GST TRAN-I has caused significant hardship and seeks judicial intervention to allow manual or other appropriate means of filing the revised form. The petitioner emphasizes the broader issue of technical difficulties faced by taxpayers and urges the court to ensure that genuine cases are not prejudiced due to such challenges. The petitioner’s writ petition aims to rectify the specific error and highlight the need for systemic improvements within the GST framework to address technical issues and procedural challenges, ensuring compliance with the Act and fair treatment of taxpayers.
Download PDF:
For reference visit:
Read another case law:
GST Case Law: