2021-TIOL-1242-HC-DEL-GST
Falcon Technologies Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - The assessee-company is engaged in trading activity - It domestically procures radio equipment & sells the same to AIR, Doordarshan & Prasar Bharti and other private broadcasters - The assessee filed the Form TRAN-1 for the relevant period, well before the due date prescribed u/r 117 of the CGST Rules - However, the CENVAT credit was not transitioned into the GST regime - The assessee furnished evidence of having filed Form TRAN-1 and raised the issue with the GST authorities - However, the issue was not resolved - Hence the present petition was filed, seeking that appropriate orders be issued to the GST authorities.
Held - The assessee was shunted from one office to another, yet regrettably its grievance has not been addressed - Despite providing copies of proof of having filed the TRAN-1 Form, the GST authorities have not taken any action - Emails written by the assessee to the help desk of the GST authorities and to the Nodal Officer have also not yielded any favourable outcome - No counter affidavit is filed by the GST Authorities & the reason for denial of credit to the assessee cannot be understood - There are plethora of judgments rendered by various High Courts, wherein the practice of the Revenue in making an assessee run from pillar to post, has been strongly deprecated - Hence the GST authorities are directed to immediately process the TRAN-1 Form filed by the assessee and reflect the credit in the electronic credit ledger under the GST regime - In case the assessee is required to file Form TRAN 1 all over again, the portal be opened to enable the assessee to do so: HC
- Writ petition allowed :DELHI HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-1241-HC-DEL-GST
Developer Group India Pvt Ltd Vs UoI
GST - The present petition was filed by the assessee, seeking that directions be issued to the Revenue Department to permit the assessee to carry forward transitional ITC by filing Form GST TRAN -1 online or manually.
Held - The relief sought for by the assessee is already granted to it in terms of the judgment in Brand Equity Treaties Limited. v. Union of India & Ors wherein a batch of petitions including that of the assessee, had been allowed - In these circumstances, no further orders are to be passed in the present case: HC
-Writ petition disposed of :DELHI HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-1240-HC-DEL-GST
Integrated Project Logistics Pvt Ltd Vs UoI\
GST - The Petitioner had an eligible CENVAT credit as per the service tax return for the relevant period - The Petitioner sought to carry forward the same into the GST regime by filing the TRAN-1 Form in terms of Section 140(8) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Several attempts were made in this regard - However, on account of technical glitches, the same were not successful - As a result, the Petitioner submitted the TRAN-1 Form manually - Thereafter, the TRAN-1 Form was processed but the input tax credit was not reflected for which the Petitioner approached the Respondents vide letter, but to no avail - Along with the petition, the Petitioner annexed a screen-shot to evidence the error shown in processing the TRAN-1 Form - Petitioner claimed that its case fell in the category which is covered by Rule 117(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017 , as the Petitioner could not submit the TRAN-1 Form, due to technical glitches - Petitioner also submitted that it is entitled to distribute the input tax credit to other locations in terms of Section 140(8) of the Act.
Held - The Petitioner is entitled to the benefit given by this Court to several other taxpayers in cases such as Aadinath Industries and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., Aman Motors v. Union of India & Ors., and A.B. Pal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. - Further, since the case of the Petitioner squarely falls under the category of 'technical difficulties on the common portal' as is evidenced by the screen-shot the Petitioner would be eligible to take the benefit of Rule 117(1A) of the Rules - This would even hold true if the narrow interpretation proposed by the Revenue in SKH Sheet Metal Components v. Union of India and Ors., which was rejected by this Court therein, was to be accepted here i.e., the extended timelines under sub-rule (1A) of Rule 117 would only be applicable those taxpayers who face 'technical difficulties on the common portal' - The present factual scenario is similar to that which came up before this Court in The Tyre Plaza v. Union of India - The Petitioner therein was also unable to file its TRAN-1 Form electronically and ultimately resorted to sending a manual copy of its TRAN-1 Form and the Court directed the Respondents to either open the GST portal or to accept the TRAN-1 Form filed manually by the Petitioner - Hence the Respondents are directed to process the TRAN-1 Form filed by the Petitioner manually in accordance with law: HC
-Writ petition allowed :DELHI HIGH COURT |
