Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2021 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 1041 - TELANGANA HIGH COURTRectification of mistake - GST Transition Form-l (TRAN-l) - alleged inaction of the respondents in permitting the petitioners to rectify the errors made by the petitioners in Transition Form – l (TRAN-l) - HELD THAT:- 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. 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. 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 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. The respondent No.1 is directed to take a decision on the representations of the petitioners dated 04.03.2020 either by reopening the online portal, or manually, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition allowed.
|