TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1041X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd real justice. It is intended to further the ends of justice and not a thing designed to trip people up. In the facts and circumstances of that case, Bombay High Court in HERITAGE LIFESTYLES AND DEVELOPERS AND PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE REVENUE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS MINISTRY OF FINANCE, STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOODS AND SERVICE TAX COUNCIL, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CGST CENTRAL EXCISE DIVISION-I, RANGE III NAVI MUMBAI, SUPERINTENDENT (COMPUTERS) CGST CENTRAL EXCISE NAVI MUMBAI SUPERINTENDENT OF CGST CENTRAL EXCISE, RANGE-III DIVISION-I, NAVI MUMBAI, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF GST CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI COMMISSIONER OF CGST CENTRAL EXCISE, CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF GST CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI [ 2020 (11) TMI 235 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] took the view that when there was no dispute to the fact that petitioner was otherwise eligible for credit then to deny the benefit of such input credit merely on technical grounds cannot be justified. It was held that merely on technical ground an admitted input credit was sought to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... specified for submission of such form. It is stated that initially the due date for filing TRAN-l form was 27.12.2017, which was subsequently extended to 31.03.2020. It is further stated that due to inadvertence, in the column under the heading Eligible duties paid on such inputs , petitioners entered 0 in place of the CENVAT credit to be carried forward. 5.3. Realizing the mistake made, petitioners submitted representations dated 04.03.2020 requesting respondent No.1 to permit them to rectify the inadvertent error in the TRAN-l form. However, there has been no response from the respondents. Aggrieved, the present writ petitions have been filed. 6. Identical counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 5 in both the cases. For convenience, we take up the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in W.P.No.14987 of 2021. 6.1. Stand taken in the counter affidavit is that facility for one time revision of TRAN-l form was inserted in the CGST Rules, 2017 as Rule 120A vide notification No.34/2017/CT dated 15.09.2017. Last date for such revision of TRAN-l declaration was extended up to 27.12.2017. 6.2. It is further stated that though petitioners had f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontentions made earlier, submits that the requirement of filing TRAN-2 is for a different purpose. It enables a registered person not registered under the existing law, to avail of input tax credit of goods held in stock on the appointed day in respect of which he is not in possession of any documents evidencing payment of central excise duty. Objective of TRAN -2 is not rectification or correction of TRAN 1. 10. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received the due consideration of the court. 11. As is evident, on and from 01.07.2017, the indirect tax system in the country had undergone transformation, inasmuch as, GST regime had come into force. Since there was a transition from the earlier system of tax payment to the new system, a transitional provision has been provided for in Section 140 of the CGST Act. As per sub-section (1) thereof, 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 of eligible duties carried forward in the return relating to the period ending with the date immediately preceding the appointed day (appointed day being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period for filing of TRAN 1 form i.e., 31.03.2020. 15. We find that by the CGST (7th amendment) Rules, 2017, Rule 120A has been inserted in the CGST Rules. It provides that every registered person, who has filed FORM GST TRAN 1 within the time period, may revise such declaration and submit the revised declaration in FORM GST TRAN 1 electronically under the common portal within the time period specified in Rules 117 to 120, or such further period as may be extended by the Commissioner in this behalf. 16. As we have seen, the limitation under sub-rule (1) of Rule 117 of the CGST Rules, was 90 days from the appointed day, which was extendable by a further period not exceeding 90 days as per the first proviso. In other words, the revised declaration in FORM GST TRAN 1 had to be filed within 180 days i.e., within 27.12.2017. While the due date for filing of TRAN 1 form was extended from 27.12.2017 to 31.03.2020, the due date for filing revised declaration in TRAN 1 form was not extended. 17. In the backdrop of the above factual and statutory provisions, we may now advert to the Delhi High Court decision in Super India Paper Products case (1 supra). 17.1. That de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of Form TRAN 2 was provided. Therefore, the objective of both TRAN -1 and TRAN -2 forms are distinct. It cannot be said that filing of TRAN 2 form was meant for rectification of mistakes in TRAN 1 form. Had that been so, the legislature would not have carried out the amendment leading to insertion of Rule 120A, which provides for revision of TRAN -1 form within the overall period of 180 days i.e., up to 27.12.2017. 21. Courts have held time and again that rules and procedures are intended to sub-serve the cause of justice. In fact procedure is often referred to as handmaid of justice . Laws and procedure are meant to regulate effectively, assist and aid the object of doing substantial and real justice. It is intended to further the ends of justice and not a thing designed to trip people up. 22. In MANGALORE CHEMICALS AND FERTIIZERS LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER 1991 (55) ELT 437, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of an exemption notification. There was no dispute that appellant was eligible for refund to be adjusted against sale tax payable for respective years. But the controversy before the Supreme Court was since the appellant had not actually secured ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RAN-I on 07.5.2018 within the extended time line. Though respondents had found the petitioner to be eligible for credit, the same was, however, denied on the ground that petitioner did not file TRAN-I on or before 27.12.2017. In the facts and circumstances of that case, Bombay High Court took the view that when there was no dispute to the fact that petitioner was otherwise eligible for credit then to deny the benefit of such input credit merely on technical grounds cannot be justified. It was held that merely on technical ground an admitted input credit was sought to be denied to the petitioner, which was wholly unfair and a travesty of justice. Accordingly Bombay High Court directed the respondents to accept the TRAN-I filed by the petitioner and to give the benefit of input tax credit in the electronic credit ledger of the petitioner. 24. We are dealing with a situation where the taxpayers have already paid CENVAT, and under law, they are entitled to carry forward the credit of such CENVAT into the new system. This right is a substantive right, and in our view, should not be permitted to be extinguished on technicalities. 25. In the light of the above, we are of the conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
