MAY 06, 2020

By Vijay Kumar

THE Delhi High Court yesterday delivered a remarkably erudite judgement (2020-TIOL-900-HC-DEL-GST) showing sympathy to the plight of the helpless taxpayers, explaining the law and procedure to the government.

In spite of exceeding the tolerable length for an article that I can permit for myself, I would like to take you through the issue quoting extensively from the judgement (which the law-making bureaucrats should read carefully and follow as a guide)

On 1st July, 2017, the new indirect tax regime was introduced in the country by way of enactments, including the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The CGST Act introduced transitionary provisions to enable the taxpayers to migrate from the erstwhile indirect tax regime to the new GST regime. Section 140 of the CGST Act deals with the transitionary provisions.

"140. (1) A registered person, other than a person opting to pay tax under section 10, shall be entitled to take, in his electronic credit ledger, the amount of CENVAT credit carried forward in the return relating to the period ending with the day immediately preceding the appointed day, furnished by him under the existing law in such manner as may be prescribed:

In pursuance of the above provision, Government framed the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 ('CGST Rules'). Rule 117 of the said rules imposed a time limit of 90 days for availing benefit of the accumulated CENVAT credit as provided under Section 140 (1) in its input tax credit register under the CGST Act.

The transition from the erstwhile regime to GST for the availment of the CENVAT credit was to be by way of a declaration to be submitted electronically in Form GST TRAN-1. The date prescribed for filing of the said Form was extended several times by way of orders issued from time to time, finally till 27th December, 2019. Several taxpayers however could not meet the deadline. This was on account of several factors - predominantly being inadequacies in the network of the respondents, which failed to meet the expectations and serve the needs of taxpayers. Thousands of taxpayers complained that there was low bandwidth and despite several attempts being made on the GST Network, they were unsuccessful in filing the statutory GST TRAN-1 Form online. Scores of complaints were

made on the portal and it was also brought to the notice of the government. The technical difficulties faced by the taxpayer were acknowledged and an IT Grievance Redressal Committee was constituted and assigned the task of redressing the grievance of the taxpayers. The recommendations of the Grievance Redressal Committee were also brought to the notice of the GST Council and the matter was deliberated upon. Several cases got settled at the government level, however some cases were contested on the ground that taxpayers did not put forward any evidence to suggest that they faced any technical glitch on the portal that prevented them to submit the GST TRAN-1 Form within the prescribed time limit. Many such matters travelled to courts. Majority of them were allowed in favour of the taxpayers, and directions were issued to the respondents to permit the filing of TRAN-1 Form beyond the extended date.

It would also be worthwhile to note that in this period, the government also acknowledged that on account of technical difficulties, the taxpayers were indeed unable to file the statutory form within time and CBIC vide notifications issued from time to time, extended the date prescribed for filing of Form GST TRAN-1 under Rule 117 (1A) of the CGST Rules. This period, as on date, is being extended by various notifications. Notably, vide Notification 48/2018-CT dated 10th September, 2018, the government inserted Sub-rule (1A) to Rule 117, whereby, on the recommendation of the Council, it is now permissible for the Commissioner to extend the date for submitting the declaration electronically in Form GST TRAN-1, by a further period in respect of registered persons who could not submit the said declaration by the due date on account of technical difficulties on the common portal and in respect of whom the Council has made a recommendation for such extension.

The insertion of Sub-rule 1(A) and, thereafter, extensions being granted for filing of GST TRAN-1, notwithstanding the period envisaged under sub rule (1) of Rule 117, demonstrates that the respondents recognize the fact that the registered persons were not able to upload GST TRAN-1 due to technical difficulties on the common portal. This also substantiates that the period for filing the TRAN-1 is not considered - either by the legislature, or the executive as sacrosanct or mandatory.

In the above factual background, in some of the cases that came up before this Court, the petitioners cited difficulties in filing the TRAN-1 Form which were of a different nature. In some cases, there were bona fide errors on the part of the taxpayer and in others, the difficulty arose on account of lack of understanding of the complete overhaul of the indirect tax system; or complicated filing procedure and the statutory forms resulting in erroneous information being stated therein.

The GSTN network, indeed, is riddled with shortcomings and inadequacies. This is palpably evident from the sheer number of cases being presented before us, in relation to such technical difficulties and inadequacies. The benchmark, in our view, is that the online system brought into force by the GSTN Ltd. should be able to perform all functions and should have all flexibilities/options, which were available in the pre-GST regime. The problems on the GSTN cannot be wished away, and have to be resolved in the right earnest. This requires sensitivity on the part of the Government which has, unfortunately, not been exhibited in adequate measure.

let's delve into the more fundamental question - Whether the Government could curtail the accrued and vested right, and restrict it to 90 days by a subordinate legislation? To answer this vexed query, let's first examine the legal provisions. Sub-section (1) of Section 140 which deals with the transitory provision, permits carry forward of the CENVAT credit. This presupposes that the amount of CENVAT credit of eligible duties has therefore accrued and is existing and reflected in the CENVAT credit register. Sub-Section (1) of Section 140 enables a registered person to carry forward such credit in the return relating to the period ending with the day (30th June, 2017) immediately preceding the appointed date which is 1st July, 2017 furnished by him under the existing law. The provisions of the Service Tax under Chapter V of the Finance Act stood repealed by virtue of the GST legislation as provided under Section 174 of the CGST Act. Thus, on the appointed date, the credits which existed under the previous regime were required to be transitioned to the new regime. This credit in every sense stood accumulated, acquired and vested on the appointed date as it was reflected in the said CENVAT credit register in the previous regime. On enactment of the CGST Act, no mechanism was provided for the refund of the credit that existed on the said date. The only mechanism was for utilization of such credit by migrating the same to the GST regime by way of filing declaration Form TRAN-1. The manner and procedure to carry forward the said CENVAT credit under Sub-Section (1) of Section 140 was to be 'prescribed'. The word 'prescribed' has also been defined under Section 2(87) to mean "prescribed by Rules made under this act on the recommendation of the council".

This brings us to Rule 117 of CGST Rules, the relevant provision prescribing the manner in which the CENVAT credit has to be transitioned. Initially, the time limit prescribed under Rule 117 for transitioning was 90 days, as explained above, was extended from time to time. Evidently, there is no other provision in the Act prescribing time limit for the transition of the CENVAT credit, and the same has been introduced only by way of Rule 117. This provision also contains a proviso, which vests power with the Commissioner to extend the period on the recommendations of the Council. Indeed, the Commissioner has exercised such power and time period which was initially to expire after 90 days, has been, as a matter of fact, extended till 29th December, 2017. In fact, for a specific class of persons, the time limit has gone way beyond the period originally envisaged, and has still not expired. Thus, there is nothing sacrosanct about the time limit so provided. It is not as if the Act completely restricts the transition of CENVAT credit in the GST regime by a particular date, and there is no rationale for curtailing the said period, except under the law of limitations. The period of 90 days has no rationale and as noted above, extensions have been granted by the Government from time to time, largely on account of its inefficient network.

In above noted circumstances, the arbitrary classification, introduced by way of sub Rule (1A), restricting the benefit only to taxpayers whose cases are covered by "technical difficulties on common portal" subject to recommendations of the GST Council, is arbitrary, vague and unreasonable.

What does the phrase "technical difficulty on the common portal" imply? There is no definition to this concept and the respondent seems to contend that it should be restricted only to "technical glitches on the common portal". We, however, do not concur with this understanding. "Technical difficulty" is too broad a term and cannot have a narrow interpretation, or application. Further, technical difficulties cannot be restricted only to a difficulty faced by or on the part of the respondent. It would include within its purview any such technical difficulties faced by the taxpayers as well, which could also be a result of the respondent's follies. After all, a completely new system of accounting; reporting of turnover; claiming credit of prepaid taxes; and, payment of taxes was introduced with the implementation of the GST regime. A basket of Central and State taxes were merged into a single tax. New forms were introduced and, as aforesaid, all of them were not even operationalised. Just like the respondents, even the taxpayers required time to adapt to the new systems, which was introduced as a completely online system. Apart from the shortcomings in the system developed by GSTN Ltd., the assessees also faced the challenges posed by low bandwidth and lack of computer knowledge and skill to operate the system. It is very unfair on the part of the respondents, in these circumstances, to expect that the taxpayers should have been fully geared to deal with the new system on day-one, when they themselves were completely ill-prepared, which led to creation of a complete mess. The respondents cannot adopt different standards - one for themselves, and another for the taxpayers. The GST regime heralded the system of seamless input tax credits. The successful migration to the new system was a formidable and unprecedented task. The fractures in the system, after its launch, became visible as taxpayers started logging in closer to the deadline. They encountered trouble filing the returns. Courts cannot be oblivious to the fact that a large population of this country does not have access to the Internet and the filing of TRAN-1 was entirely shifted to electronic means. The Nodal Officers often reach to the conclusion that there is no technical glitch as per their GST system laws, as there is no information stored/logged that would indicate that the taxpayers attempted to save/submit the filing of Form GST TRAN-1. Thus, the phrase "technical difficulty" is being given a restrictive meaning which is supplied by the GST system logs. Conscious of the circumstances that are prevailing, we feel that taxpayers cannot be robbed of their valuable rights on an unreasonable and unfounded basis of them not having filed TRAN-1 Form within 90 days, when civil rights can be enforced within a period of three years from the date of commencement of limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963.

The introduction of Sub rule (1A) in Rule 117 is a patchwork solution that does not recognise the entirety of the situation. It sneaks in an exception, without addressing situations taken note of by us. This exception, as worded, is an artificial construction of technical difficulties, limiting it to those existing on the common portal. It is unfair to create this distinction and restrict it to technical snags alone. In our view, there could be various different types of technical difficulties occurring on the common portal which may not be solely on account of the failure to upload the form. The access to the GST portal could be hindered for myriad reasons, sometimes not resulting in the creation of a GST log-in record. Further, the difficulties may also be offline, as a result of several other restrictive factors. It would be an erroneous approach to attach undue importance to the concept of "technical glitch" only to that which occurs on the GST Common portal, as a pre-condition, for an assesee/tax payer to be granted the benefit of Sub- Rule (1A) of Rule 117. The purpose for which Sub-Rule (1A) to Rule 117 has been introduced has to be understood in the right perspective by focusing on the purpose which it is intended to serve. The purpose was to save and protect the rights of taxpayers to avail of the CENVAT credit lying in their account. That objective should also serve other taxpayers, such as the petitioners. The approach of the Government should be fair and reasonable. It cannot be arbitrary or discriminatory, if it has to pass the muster of Article 14 of the Constitution. The government cannot turn a blind eye, as if there were no errors on the GSTN portal. It cannot adopt different yardsticks while evaluating the conduct of the taxpayers, and its own conduct, acts and omissions. The extremely narrow interpretation that the respondents seek to advance, of the concept of "technical difficulties", in order to avail the benefit of Sub Rule (1A), is contrary to the statutory mechanism built in the transitory provisions of the CGST Act. The legislature has recognized such existing rights and has protected the same by allowing migration thereof in the new regime under the aforesaid provision. In order to avail the benefit, no restriction has been put under any provisions of the Act in terms of the time period for transition. The time limit prescribed for availing the input tax credit with respect to the purchase of goods and services made in the pre-GST regime, cannot be discriminatory and unreasonable. There has to be a rationale forthcoming and, in absence thereof, it would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Further, we are also of the view that the CENVAT credit which stood accrued and vested is the property of the assessee, and is a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution. The same cannot be taken away merely by way of delegated legislation by framing rules, without there being any overarching provision in the GST Act

The purport of the transitory provisions is to allow a smooth migration from the erstwhile service tax regime to the new GST regime and the interpretation must be in consonance with the said purpose.

We, therefore, have no hesitation in reading down the said provision [ Rule 117] as being directory in nature, insofar as it prescribes the time-limit for transitioning of credit and therefore, the same would not result in the forfeiture of the rights, in case the credit is not availed within the period prescribed. This however, does not mean that the availing of CENVAT credit can be in perpetuity. Transitory provisions, as the word indicates, have to be given its due meaning. Transition from pre-GST Regime to GST Regime has not been smooth and therefore, what was reasonable in ideal circumstances is not in the current situation. In absence of any specific provisions under the Act, we would have to hold that in terms of the residuary provisions of the Limitation Act, the period of three years should be the guiding principle and thus a period of three years from the appointed date would be the maximum period for availing of such credit.

Respondents are directed to either open the online portal so as to enable the Petitioners to file declaration TRAN-1 electronically, or to accept the same manually. Respondents shall thereafter process the claims in accordance with law. We are also of the opinion that other taxpayers who are similarly situated should also be entitled to avail the benefit of this judgment.

The High Court directed the Government to publicise this judgment widely including by way of publishing the same on their website so that others who may not have been able to file TRAN-1 till date are permitted to do so on or before 30.06.2020.

When the Courts can understand the situation so clearly, why is it that babus refuse to see? I hope and pray that the government will not get angry and subject the nation to another round of litigation in the Supreme Court. In these Corona Times, let us at least try to reduce litigation, if we really cannot make GST the simple tax it is meant to be.

Until next week