TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 464X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stered persons are permitted to submit the declaration in TRAN-I up to 31.12.2019 whereas the said extension of time prescribed originally under Rule 117 is not extended, if any technical glitch arises on the error committed by the registered persons. In the light of Section 140 of the Act read with Section 142 and 172 as well as Rule 117 (1A), it is clear that though there is no explicit provision to permit revision filing of TRAN-I at an extended period for the registered persons who fail to furnish the material for having filed the same by 27.12.2017, in the absence of any specific time prescribed under Section 140 of the Act and in terms of introduction of Rules 117(1A) and 120A, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revenue could not be countenanced. Reliance can be placed in the case of ADFERT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ 2019 (11) TMI 282 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] where it was held that The Respondents are directed to permit the Petitioners to file or revise where already filed incorrect TRAN-1 either electronically or manually statutory Form(s) TRAN-1 on or before 30th November 2019. The request of the petitioners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. vs. Union of India. 2019(29) G.S.T.L. 602 (Del.) 4. Adlfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and ors. (2019-VIL-547-DEL) 4. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the revenue submits that in terms of the circular dated 03.04.2018 issued by the Government of India, input Tax Grievance Redressal Mechanism has been set up whereby nodal officers have been appointed to redress the grievances of the registered dealers in filing the TRAN 1/ TRAN-2. By virtue of the Rule 117(1A) inserted with effect from 10.09.2018 vide Notification No.48/2018, the commissioner may, on the recommendations of the Council extend the date for submitting the declaration in TRAN-1 by a further period on account of technical difficulties on the common portal. Revised TRAN-I has to be filed on account of any error committed by the registered persons under Rule 120A of the Rules- which contemplates for revision of declaration in Form GST TRAN- I. Hence, no reliance can be placed on Rule 1171 IA), to permit the petitioners to file or revise the TRAN 1/ TRAN-2 beyond the statutory period prescribed, which otherwise would be causing violence to the language employed i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce with the argument of Petitioners that unutilized credit arising on account of duty/ tax paid under erstwhile Acts is vested right which cannot be taken away on procedural or technical grounds. The Petitioners who were registered under Central Excise Act or VAT Act must be filing their returns and it is one of the requirements of Section 140 of CGST Act, 2017 to carry forward unutilized credit. The Respondent authorities were having complete record of already registered persons and at present they are free to verify fact and figures of any Petitioner thus inspite of being aware of complete facts and figures, the Respondent cannot deprive Petitioners from their valuable right of credit. 10. During the course of arguments, counsel for the Petitioners submitted various judgments and we find that a Division Bench of Gujrat High Court in the case of Siddharth Enterprises Vs. The Nodal Officer 2019-TIOL-2068-HC-AHM-GST has dealt with issue involved at length. It has been held that denial of credit of tax/ duty paid under existing Acts would amount to violation of Article 14 and 300A of Constitution of India. Unutilized credit has been recognized as vested right and property i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s subject to the constitutional obligation under Article 14. The true scope and ambit of Article 14 has been the subject matter of numerous decisions and it is not necessary to make any detailed reference to them. It is sufficient to state that the content and reach of Article 14 must not be confused with the doctrine of classification. Unfortunately, in the early stages of the evolution of our constitutional law, Article 14 came to be identified with the doctrine of classification because the view taken was that that Article forbids discrimination and there would be no discrimination where the classification making the differentia fulfils two conditions, namely. (i) that the classification is founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons OF things that are grouped together from others left out of the group; and (ii) that that differentia has a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the impugned legislative on executive action. It was for the first time in E. P. Ayyappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 2 SCR 348 : (AIR 1974 SC 55S), that this Court laid bare a new dimension of Alticle 14 and pointed out that that Article has highly activist magn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imensions and it cannot be imprisoned within traditional and doctrinaire limits. Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. The principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence. ' This was again reiterated by this Court in International Airport Authority's case (1979) 3 SCR 1014) at p. 1042: (AIR 1979 SC 1628) (supra) of the Report. It must therefore now be taken to be well settled that what Article 14 strikes at is arbitrariness because an action that is arbitrary, must necessarily involve negation of equality. The doctrine of classification which is evolved by the Courts is not paraphrase of Article 14 nor is it the objective and end of that Article. It is merely a judicial formula for determining whether the legislative or executive action in question is arbitrary and therefore constituting denial of equality. If the classification is not reasonable ana does not satisfy the two conditions referred to above, the impugned legislative or executive action would plainly be arbitrary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xpectation can provide a sufficient interest to enable one who cannot point to the existence of a substantive right to obtain the leave of the court to apply for judicial review. It is generally agreed that 'legitimate expectation' gives the applicant sufficient locus standi for judicial review and that the doctrine of legitimate expectation to be confined mostly to right of a fair hearing before cm decision which results in negativing a promise or withdrawing an undertaking is taken. The doctrine does not give scope to claim relief straightway from the administrative authorities as no crystallized right as such is involved. The protection of such legitimate expectation does not require the fulfillment of the expectation where an overriding public interest requires otherwise. In other words, where a person's legitimate expectation is not fulfilled by taking a particular decision then the decisionmaker should justify the denial of such expectation by showing some overriding public interest. (See : Union of India and Ors. v. Hindustan Development Corporation and Ors. , AIR 1994 SC 988) 9. While the discretion to change the policy exercise of the executive power; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit of duty already paid by him. It also is a serious affront to his right to carry on his trade or business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. On both the counts, therefore, that portion of sub-rule (3A) of rule must fail. 40. The liability to pay GST on sale of stock carried forward from the previous tax regime without corresponding input tax credit would Lead to double taxation on the same subject matter and, therefore, it is arbitrary and irrational. 41. C.B.E. C. Flyer No.20, dated 1.1.2018 had clarified as under : (c) Credit on duty paid stock : A registered taxable person. other than manufacturer or service provider, may have a duty paid goods in his stock on 1st July 202 7. GST would be payable on all supplies of goods or services made after the appointed day. It is not the intention of the Government to collect tax twice on the same goods. Hence, in such cases, it has been provided that the credit of the duty/ tax paid earlier would be admissible as credit. 42. Article 300A provides that no person shall be deprived of property saved by authority of law. While right to the property is no longer a fundamental r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
