BMW India Financial Services Private Limited VS The Union of India

In the legal matter at hand, the court has scheduled the final hearing following a request from the respective legal counsels. The petitioner has brought forward a grievance concerning the refusal to transition a credit amounting to Rs. 17,07,673/- under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. This denial allegedly occurred despite the petitioner submitting a declaration in Form GST TRAN-1 on December 27, 2017, within the stipulated time frame. The submission was made through the GST Network (GSTN), managed by Respondent No. 4, and the authorities have acknowledged the successful filing of this declaration.

The petitioner contends that the actions of the respondents contravene Articles 14, 265, and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of laws within the territory of India. Article 265 states that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Article 300-A deals with the right to property, emphasizing that no person shall be deprived of their property save by authority of law.

Therefore, the core issue revolves around the alleged violation of constitutional provisions by the respondents in denying the transition of the GST credit despite compliance with the requisite procedures and timelines. The case is set for final adjudication, where the court will assess the arguments and evidence presented by both parties to determine the legality and constitutionality of the actions in question.

submitted that under Section 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act”), transitional provisions were provided for transitioning credits from the earlier indirect tax regime to the GST regime. The Petitioner claims to have submitted a declaration in Form GST TRAN-1 on 27th December 2017, which detailed credits amounting to Rs. 17,07,673/-.

However, despite the submission being within the prescribed time, the credit allegedly was not transitioned to the Petitioner’s electronic credit ledger by the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN), represented by Respondent No. 4. The Petitioner contends that the GST authorities acknowledged the successful filing of the form but failed to give effect to the transition of credit.

The grievance of the Petitioner is grounded in constitutional principles, primarily Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 265 (Principles of Taxation), and 300-A (Right to Property) of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner asserts that the denial of transitioned credit without valid justification violates these fundamental rights.

In pursuit of relief, the Petitioner has approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order, or direction. The relief sought includes directing the Respondents, including their subordinate officers, to facilitate the transition of the Rs. 17,07,673/- credit into the Petitioner’s electronic credit ledger (FORM GST PMT-2). This could involve allowing the Petitioner to resubmit Form GST TRAN-1 electronically or manually, or alternatively permitting the credit in FORM GSTR 3B, along with any other necessary actions deemed fit by the Court.

The Petitioner, a Non-Banking Financial Company registered under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, engages in financing automobiles through loans and leases, and also acts as a corporate insurance agent. The company operates across 14 states in India and claims that its operations were adversely affected by the failure to transition the tax credit as per the transitional provisions under GST law.

The matter is now set for final hearing before the Court, where the issues of denial of credit transition and the constitutional validity of such denial will be examined thoroughly. The outcome of this case could potentially set a precedent for similar cases involving transitional credit under GST law and the protection of constitutional rights in taxation matters.

In a legal case, the petitioner, a Non-Banking Financial Company regulated under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India concerning Goods and Services Tax (GST) credit transitioning issues. The petitioner sought relief regarding the denial of transitioning VAT credit amounting to Rs. 17,07,673/- under the GST regime.

The core issue arose from the petitioner’s submission of Form GST TRAN-1 on December 27, 2017, within the stipulated timeframe. This form was intended to carry forward VAT credits accrued under the previous tax regime into the GST framework. Despite timely submission and receipt of an acknowledgment from GSTN (Goods and Services Tax Network) confirming successful filing, the entire credit amount was not reflected in the petitioner’s electronic credit ledger.

The petitioner argued that this failure was due to technical glitches in the GSTN portal, which prevented the proper transitioning of the credit. This issue allegedly infringed upon the petitioner’s rights under Articles 14, 265, and 300-A of the Constitution of India, which respectively guarantee equality before the law, taxation only by authority of law, and protection against deprivation of property except by authority of law.

The substantive relief sought by the petitioner included a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ directing the respondents (including GSTN and related authorities) to immediately transition the credit of Rs. 17,07,673/- into the petitioner’s electronic credit ledger in FORM GST PMT-2. Alternatively, the petitioner requested permission to resubmit Form GST TRAN-1 or to avail the credit through FORM GSTR 3B, along with any other orders deemed fit by the court.

The petitioner emphasized its compliance with tax regulations across multiple states in India and its entitlement, under Section 142(11)(c) of the Maharashtra GST Act, 2017, to carry forward VAT as state tax credit into the GST regime. The amount in question represented VAT paid upfront on leasing contracts before the GST implementation, which under transitional provisions, should have been seamlessly carried forward.

In response to the petition, the court scheduled the matter for final hearing upon the request of both parties’ counsels. This legal action underscores the complexities and challenges faced by businesses in navigating the transition to GST and the constitutional protections invoked in such matters of tax credit entitlements.

In a legal matter before the court, the petitioner, a Non-Banking Financial Company registered under the Reserve Bank of India Act, has brought a case against the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) regarding the transitioning of VAT credits under the GST regime. The petitioner alleges that despite timely submission of a declaration in Form GST TRAN-1 on December 27, 2017, for transitioning VAT credits amounting to Rs. 17,07,673/-, the credit was not reflected in their electronic credit ledger due to technical glitches on the GSTN portal.

The petitioner contends that they are entitled to carry forward VAT paid under the previous tax regime as State Tax Credit under Section 142(11)(c) of the Maharashtra GST Act, similar to provisions in the Central GST Act. They argue that the failure to transition this credit is a violation of their constitutional rights under Articles 14, 265, and 300-A of the Indian Constitution.

Seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner requests the court to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate direction to compel the GSTN and related authorities to transition the Rs. 17,07,673/- credit into their electronic credit ledger (Form GST PMT-2) or allow them to resubmit Form GST TRAN-1. They argue that this relief is necessary to uphold their substantive rights and address the technical issues that prevented the transition despite their timely compliance.

The petitioner emphasizes that similar issues in other states were resolved in their favor through reopening of portals for TRAN-1 filings, and therefore, consistency in treatment is warranted across all jurisdictions. They assert that once the declaration was filed within the stipulated time, they acquired a vested right to the transition of credits, which cannot be negated due to technical failures beyond their control.

The petitioner supports their case with documentation of the submission, acknowledgments received, and correspondence with GST Help Desks and authorities to resolve the issue. They urge the court to intervene and order the authorities to rectify the situation promptly, ensuring their right to avail the VAT credit under the GST regime.

In summary, the case revolves around the petitioner’s claim for a writ to compel the GSTN and associated authorities to rectify technical failures that prevented the transitioning of VAT credits under GST laws, thereby upholding their rights and ensuring procedural fairness.

The matter under consideration involves a legal challenge brought forth by a Non-Banking Financial Company (Petitioner) against the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) and related authorities (Respondents) regarding the transitioning of VAT credit under the GST regime. The Petitioner filed a declaration in Form GST TRAN-1 on December 27, 2017, seeking to transition VAT credit amounting to Rs. 17,07,673 into the GST regime. Despite successful submission and acknowledgment by the Respondents, the credit was not reflected in the Petitioner’s electronic credit ledger due to alleged technical glitches in the GSTN portal.

The Petitioner contends that it is entitled to carry forward this VAT credit under Section 142(11)(c) of the Maharashtra GST Act, 2017, equivalent to Section 142(11)(c) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. It asserts that the denial of this credit violates constitutional provisions, including Articles 14 (equality before law), 265 (no taxation without authority of law), and 300-A (right to property).

In its plea filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ directing the Respondents to facilitate the transition of the VAT credit into its electronic credit ledger. The relief requested includes permission to resubmit Form GST TRAN-1 electronically or manually, or alternatively to utilize the credit in FORM GSTR 3B, emphasizing that the technical failures were beyond its control and have unjustly deprived it of rightful tax benefits.

The Petitioner, a registered entity across 14 states in India, highlights that similar technical issues faced in other states were resolved favorably after intervention, suggesting consistency in relief application. It further argues that once a taxpayer submits Form GST TRAN-1 within the stipulated timeline, a vested right is established which cannot be nullified due to technical lapses attributable to the GSTN.

Respondent authorities, in their affidavits, counter the Petitioner’s claims by asserting that technical analysis was conducted and the case was forwarded to the IT Grievance Redressal Committee in accordance with CBIC Circular No.39/13/2018. They contend that the GSTN has no authority to permit late filing of TRAN-1 forms beyond the deadline of December 27, 2017, and assert that proper procedures were followed in handling the Petitioner’s case.

The case is currently at the stage of final hearings, with both parties presenting their arguments and evidence. The central issue revolves around whether the technical glitches experienced by the Petitioner justify the court’s intervention to enforce the transitioning of the VAT credit under GST law. The outcome will likely hinge on interpretations of procedural fairness, constitutional rights, and the practical challenges associated with GSTN’s technical infrastructure.

the summary you’ve requested is quite lengthy, but I’ll provide a detailed overview of the case based on the information provided:

The matter concerns a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, where the petitioner, a Non-Banking Financial Company registered under the RBI Act, 1934, is aggrieved by the denial of transitioning VAT credit amounting to Rs. 17,07,673/- under the GST regime. This credit was declared in Form GST TRAN-1 on 27th December 2017, which was submitted on time but not reflected in the petitioner’s electronic credit ledger due to alleged technical glitches in the GSTN portal.

The petitioner contends that it is entitled to carry forward VAT paid under the previous tax regime as State Tax Credit under Section 142(11)(c) of the MGST Act, similar to provisions in the CGST Act. Despite submitting the required form and receiving confirmation of successful filing, the credit was not transitioned, leading to this legal challenge.

The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents (including GSTN and tax authorities) to facilitate the transition of this credit into their electronic credit ledger or allow manual resubmission, citing violations of Articles 14, 265, and 300-A of the Constitution related to equality before law, taxation without authority of law, and right to property respectively.

In response, the respondents argue that the GSTN has processed the petitioner’s case as per Circular No.39/13/2018, forwarding it to the IT Grievance Redressal Committee for review. They assert that no technical errors were found on their end that would prevent the petitioner from filing or transitioning the credit within the stipulated time.

The petitioner has provided evidence of correspondence with GST help desks and authorities in Maharashtra to resolve the issue, highlighting similar resolutions in other states where technical glitches led to reopening of portals for filing.

During the proceedings, both parties presented their arguments, referencing precedents like Bhargava Motors v/s. UOI, where similar issues were addressed by the court in favor of the petitioner.

The case involves detailed examination of procedural lapses, technical issues with GSTN portal, and constitutional rights concerning taxation and administrative fairness.

Overall, the court is considering whether to grant the writ of mandamus sought by the petitioner to rectify the alleged denial of VAT credit transition, balancing technical compliance with substantive rights under GST laws and constitutional provisions.

The matter at hand revolves around a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a Non-Banking Financial Company (Petitioner) aggrieved by the denial of transitioning credit amounting to Rs. 17,07,673/- under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. The Petitioner had submitted Form GST TRAN-1 on 27th December 2017 to transition VAT credit into the GST regime, which was acknowledged as successfully filed by the authorities. However, due to alleged technical glitches in the GSTN portal, this credit was not reflected in the Petitioner’s electronic ledger.

The Petitioner contends that it has a vested right to transition this credit under Section 142(11)(c) of the Maharashtra GST Act, 2017, equivalent to provisions in the Central GST Act, 2017. Despite submitting evidence of successful filing and correspondence with GST authorities including the Help Desk and Maharashtra GST Commissionerate, the transition of credit was not facilitated.

In response, the Respondents (GSTN and others) argue that the technical issue was reviewed by the GSTN and forwarded to the IT Grievance Redressal Committee (ITGRC) as per CBIC Circulars. The ITGRC did not approve the Petitioner’s case for reopening the portal for Form GST TRAN-1 filing after the due date. They contend that there was no error from GSTN’s side that would warrant reopening of the portal after the deadline.

The Petitioner relies on precedents such as Bhargava Motors v/s. UOI and Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Union of India, emphasizing that unutilized credit constitutes a vested right under Article 300-A of the Constitution, and hence, should be facilitated either by reopening the portal or accepting manual filing.

Conversely, the Respondents cite the decision in NELCO Limited v/s. Union of India, asserting that unless there is a technical glitch found from GSTN’s end and approved by ITGRC, the portal cannot be reopened post-deadline.

The court proceedings have included arguments from both sides, highlighting the technicalities of GSTN operations, the legal status of transitional credits, and interpretations of constitutional provisions regarding vested rights.

Ultimately, the court will decide whether to grant the writ of mandamus sought by the Petitioner to compel the authorities to transition the credit or whether to uphold the decisions of the ITGRC and GSTN denying the reopening of the portal. The case underscores the complexities and legal interpretations involved in GST transitions and technical issues faced by taxpayers under the new tax regime in India.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: