Ratek Pheon Friction Technologies Private Limited VS Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax

The proceedings involved a multitude of petitioners and respondents, each represented by a team of legal professionals. On behalf of the petitioners, individuals including Mr. Shubham Agarwal, Mr. Nishant Mishra, Mr. Praveen Kumar, Mr. Suyash Agarwal, Mr. Rahul Agarwal, Mr. Rishi Raj Kapoor, Mr. Ayush Khanna, Mr. Harsh Vardhan Gupta, Mr. Vishwjit, Mr. Krishnaji Khare, Mr. Vinayak Mithal, Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Ms. Sanyukta Singh, and Ms. Pooja Talwar were present. Conversely, the State was represented by Mr. Manish Goyal, the learned Additional Advocate General, along with assistance from Mr. Apurva Hajela, Mr. A.C. Tripathi, Mr. B.P. Singh Kachhawah, and Mr. Manoj Kumar Kushwaha. Additionally, Mr. Shashi Prakash Singh, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India, led the State’s representation, with support from Mr. Sudarshan Singh, Mr. Krishna Ji Shukla, Mr. Anant Kumar Tiwari, Mr. Rajesh Tripathi, Mr. Ishan Shishu, and Mr. [additional name, if provided]. The details of the petition, arguments presented, and subsequent legal proceedings would likely be outlined within the transcript or court records.

The summary concerns a batch of writ petitions where petitioners, represented by various legal representatives, seek relief in the form of mandamus. They request respondent authorities to allow them to submit, revise, or re-revise electronically their declarations on Form GST TRAN-1 and GST TRAN-2. These declarations pertain to carrying forward the CENVAT and VAT Input Tax Credit under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (UPGST Act). The petitions do not seek any other relief.

There are three main categories of cases among the petitioners. First, some claim to have submitted Form GST TRAN-1 and/or TRAN-2 electronically within the stipulated time but encountered errors. They tried to correct or revise these forms within the given timeframe but faced technical glitches on the GST Portal, providing evidence of their attempts. Second, some petitioners assert that despite their efforts, they were unable to submit these forms electronically within the specified time due to technical issues on the GST Portal, again supported by evidence of their attempts. The third type of cases combines elements of the first two types, where petitioners claim to have made unsuccessful attempts to submit or revise the forms electronically but lack evidence of these attempts. Therefore, the petitioners argue that they have been denied their rightful claims due to technical issues on the GST Portal.

A series of writ petitions have been filed by various parties represented by different legal counsels seeking relief through mandamus, directing the respondent authorities to permit them to electronically submit, revise, or re-revise their respective declarations on Form GST TRAN-1 and GST TRAN-2. These forms are crucial for carrying forward the CENVAT (Central Value Added Tax) and VAT (Value Added Tax) Input Tax Credit under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (UPGST Act). The petitions focus solely on this issue without pressing for any other relief.

The petitioners can be categorized into three main groups based on their claims. Firstly, some petitioners assert that they initially submitted Form GST TRAN-1 and/or TRAN-2 electronically within the stipulated time but encountered errors in the submitted forms. Despite attempting to rectify these errors within the allotted time frame, they were unable to do so due to technical glitches on the GST Portal. They possess evidence to support their claims of attempted corrections. Secondly, other petitioners state that they were unable to electronically submit the forms within the designated period, despite their efforts, because of technical issues on the GST Portal. They also provide evidence of their attempts to do so. Thirdly, there are cases that combine elements of the first two categories, where petitioners assert they made efforts to electronically submit or revise the forms but were unsuccessful. However, they lack evidence of these attempts, distinguishing them from the first two groups. All petitioners argue that these circumstances have led to the denial of full benefits of transition credit from transactions conducted under previous indirect tax laws.

To streamline the proceedings, the court has consolidated this batch of writ petitions based on the facts presented in three specific cases: Writ Tax No. 477 of 2021 (M/s Ratek Pheon Friction Technologies Private Limited Vs. Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax & Ors.), Writ Tax No. 225 of 2021 (M/s Modern Plywood Center Vs. Union of India & Ors.), and Writ Tax No. 872 of 2018 (Allied Agencies Vs. Union of India & Ors.)

A series of writ petitions were presented by various parties, including Mr. Shubham Agarwal, Mr. Nishant Mishra, Mr. Praveen Kumar, Mr. Suyash Agarwal, Mr. Rahul Agarwal, Mr. Rishi Raj Kapoor, Mr. Ayush Khanna, Mr. Harsh Vardhan Gupta, Mr. Vishwjit, Mr. Krishnaji Khare, Mr. Vinayak Mithal, Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Ms. Sanyukta Singh, and Ms. Pooja Talwar as petitioners, with representation from legal counsels like Mr. Manish Goyal, Mr. Apurva Hajela, Mr. A.C. Tripathi, Mr. B.P. Singh Kachhawah, Mr. Manoj Kumar Kushwaha for the State, Mr. Shashi Prakash Singh, Mr. Sudarshan Singh, Mr. Krishna Ji Shukla, Mr. Anant Kumar Tiwari, Mr. Rajesh Tripathi, Mr. Ishan Shishu, and Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh for the Union of India, and Mr. Ramesh Chandra Shukla, Mr. Ashok Singh, Mr. Parv Agarwal, Mr. Dhananjai Awasthi, Mr. Krishna Agarwal, Mr. Gaurav Mahajan, Mr. Amit Mahajan, Mr. Ankur Agarwal, and Mr. B.K. Singh Raghuvanshi for the CGST authorities.

The crux of the petitions was to seek a mandamus from the authorities to permit the petitioners to electronically submit, revise, or re-revise their respective declarations on Form GST TRAN-1 and GST TRAN-2 under the CGST Act and the Uttar Pradesh GST Act to carry forward the CENVAT and VAT Input Tax Credit. These petitions did not press for any other relief during the hearing.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: