Bombay High Court Permits Tendering of Revised FORM GST-TRAN-1, Online or Manually
The Court noted that no reasons were set out for disapproving the TRAN-1 claims, which reflected non-application of mind by the Authorities
The Bombay High Court has permitted the Petitioner – Assessee to tender its revised FORM GST-TRAN-1 either online or manually as per the provisions of Rule 120-A of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 (CGST Rules).
The matter titled Gayatri Agro Agencies v Union of India & Ors was placed before the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay, comprising Justices Ravindra V. Ghuge and S. G. Mehare.
The Petitioner – Assessee through a writ petition had sought to direct the Respondent – Authorities to permit the Petitioner to submit its revised FORM GST-TRAN-1 return electronically on the common portal or to tender it manually as per the provisions of Rule 120-A of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 (CGST Rules). It was submitted by the Petitioner – Assessee that the accrued CENVAT credit was not made available to the Petitioner – Assessee as FORM GST-TRAN-1 could not be uploaded due to the technical glitches in the GSTN Portal and that the Respondent – Authorities were not allowing the Petitioner, either to revise the proposal or submit the hard copy of the proposal, manually. The Petitioner – Assessee further submitted that they had re-uploaded his form TRAN-1 later which was successfully uploaded and his returns had been tendered, without any glitches but he desired to submit a revised form which was permissible u/R 120-A of the CGST Rules.
On the other hand, the Respondent – Authorities contended that the Petitioner – Assessee could not be allowed to file revised returns under form GST TRAN-1 after it was once filed.
The Court noted that after the Petitioner had first failed in uploading the TRAN-1 form, he later succeeded in uploading the said form without glitches but the revision that was sought by the Petitioner, was not being accepted by the Respondent. It found that the department was treating the said revised form as being a Second Revision sought by the Petitioner, which was apparently impermissible in law and thus, arrived at the following conclusion:
"We find from the contents of the TRAN-1 form that the successful attempt of the petitioner in uploading the form online was nothing new but the exact copy of the form which he had attempted to submit online for the first time and in which effort, he had been unsuccessful because of the glitches in GSTN Portal."
The Court noted that no reasons were set out for disapproving the TRAN-1 claims, which reflected non-application of mind by the Respondent – Authorities.
The Court by relying on certain judgments of High Courts permitted the Petitioner to tender the revised form GST TRAN-1, online as well as by tendering a copy manually to the Respondent – Authorities within a period of two weeks.