Dhamtari Krishi Kendra VS Union Of India

The current legal dispute represents a subsequent stage in a series of litigious events. The petitioner’s primary grievance revolves around their inability to upload GST TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 returns on the GST web portal by the stipulated deadline of December 27, 2017.

The petitioner contends that following the implementation of the new tax regime, the government extended the deadline for submitting GST Tran-1 and Tran-2 returns until December 27, 2017. However, due to technical glitches encountered by the petitioner, they were unable to submit the returns on time. The petitioner promptly notified the authorities in the Commercial Tax Department on December 26, 2017, as evidenced by document Annexure P/7 bearing the seal and signature of the department.

Furthermore, the petitioner attempted to submit TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 returns manually on January 18, 2018, by visiting the GST Officers in District Dhamtari and also sent the GST TRAN-1 form by post on the same day. However, these attempts were unsuccessful, leading the petitioner to file a writ petition (WPT No. 68 of 2018) in the High Court on February 26, 2018. The High Court, after considering the petitioner’s submissions, disposed of the writ petition on May 14, 2018, directing the petitioner to approach the Nodal Officer at Dhamtari within four days with a detailed representation and all necessary documents for consideration.

Following this directive, the petitioner submitted their representation to the concerned authorities, as instructed by the court. However, on September 14, 2018, the Commissioner of State Commercial Tax refused permission to the petitioner to submit TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 returns. The refusal was based on the petitioner’s alleged failure to provide evidence of attempting to submit the returns within the stipulated period and facing a technical glitch. Notably, the Commissioner’s decision did not reference the petitioner’s earlier complaint regarding the technical glitch, nor did it acknowledge the petitioner’s attempts to submit the returns manually or by registered post.

Given the discrepancy between the Commissioner’s decision and the evidence presented by the petitioner, the refusal to grant permission on September 14, 2018, prompted the filing of the current writ petition.

The petitioner’s counsel argues that the Commissioner’s findings are both erroneous and perverse, lacking proper verification of the factual details from the records. To substantiate this claim, reference is made to a judgment delivered by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of Tara Exports Vs. Union of India, decided on September 10, 2018. In this case, under circumstances similar to the petitioner’s, the Division Bench of the Madurai Bench granted permission to the petitioner to submit TRAN-1. The respondents were directed to either open the portal for electronic submission or, alternatively, to accept manually filled TRAN-1 forms and allow input credits.

Additionally, the petitioner’s counsel cites a judgment by the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which decided a cluster of more than 100 writ petitions on November 4, 2019, with the lead case being Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Others. In these cases, petitioners encountered difficulties in electronically submitting prescribed forms or faced technical glitches. Considering all submissions from both petitioners and respondents, the Punjab & Haryana High Court, through its order dated November 4, 2019, allowed the writ petitions, permitting submission of TRAN-1 forms.

These legal precedents illustrate instances where courts have granted relief to petitioners facing challenges similar to those of the present petitioner. The decisions highlight the courts’ recognition of the practical difficulties faced by taxpayers in complying with electronic submission requirements and technical glitches. The petitioner’s counsel contends that given these precedents, the Commissioner’s refusal to grant permission to submit TRAN-1 forms appears unjustified and warrants reconsideration.

The court, taking into account the significant legal precedents established by the Madras High Court and the Punjab & Haryana High Court, opines that the State authorities, as referred by the High Court in the earlier litigation of WPT No. 68 of 2018, should have duly considered the petitioner’s contentions. In the aforementioned writ petition, the petitioner explicitly stated that they encountered technical glitches while submitting TRAN-1 forms and lodged a report to the authorities on December 26, 2017, well before the deadline. Additionally, the petitioner manually submitted the forms on January 18, 2018, and sent them via registered post on the same day. However, these crucial aspects were not deliberated upon or addressed by the Commissioner in their order dated September 14, 2018. Due to the absence of reasons and discussion by the Commissioner regarding the petitioner’s submissions, the court believes that the said order requires reconsideration.

Consequently, the court remands the matter back to the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, for reconsideration and issuance of a fresh order. The court emphasizes that the Commissioner should take into account the documents provided by the petitioner, demonstrating their inability to submit TRAN-1 forms electronically, the complaint lodged with the department before the deadline, and the manual submission and registered post delivery of the forms within a short period after the deadline.

Furthermore, the court highlights Section 117(1)A of the GST Law, which empowers the GST Council to extend the submission deadline for those facing technical difficulties on the common portal. If necessary, the Commissioner can refer the matter to the GST Council for appropriate recommendations.

Considering the petitioner’s prompt actions in notifying the department of the technical glitch, submitting forms manually and via registered post, and pursuing legal recourse, the court urges the Commissioner to expedite the matter and seek recommendations from the GST Council at the earliest.

In light of the time expended throughout the litigation process, the court expects the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, to promptly render a decision, ideally within a maximum timeframe of 60 days from the receipt of a copy of this order. Should the Commissioner opt to refer the matter to the GST Council, the court further anticipates that the Council will expeditiously deliberate on the reference provided by the Commissioner, aiming to reach a resolution within a timeframe of 90 days from the date of receipt of the said reference. These stipulations are aimed at ensuring timely adjudication of the matter and minimizing any undue delays in the resolution process.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Law:

GST Case Law: