TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS. [ 2019 (5) TMI 899 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and KUSUM ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., SANKO GOSEI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS. [ 2019 (7) TMI 945 - DELHI HIGH COURT] , the Court had directed the Respondents to enable the Petitioner to rectify TRAN-1 Form. On 4th January, 2018, when the Petitioner attempted to load TRAN-2 Form, no time had been specified under the Rules, which could be deemed to be mandatory. The time period was introduced on 7th March, 2018 through Notification No. 12/2018-CT. By virtue of this notification, in terms of Rule 117(4)(iii)(b), the time period was specified to be up to 31st March, 2018. Thus, even if the retrospective amendment to Section 140, (introduced throu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other like goods. It migrated from the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 into the GST regime, and as on the appointed date under the GST laws, it had a closing stock of finished goods of ₹ 7,44,41,433/- on which it was entitled to claim transitional input tax credit (hereinafter ITC ) in terms of Section 140(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter the Act ). Accordingly, on 22nd November, 2017, the petitioner filed the statutory TRAN-1 Form for transitioning ITC of Value Added Tax (hereinafter VAT ) of ₹ 23,57,203/- under the DGST Act, 2017. On 27th December, 2017, an additional claim of State tax of ₹ 59,433/- was made and transitional ITC of ₹ 52,166/- was claimed under the Act. For claiming the ITC on the stock of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for Rule 117(4)(b)(iii). Later, by way of Notification No.12/2018-CT dated 7th March, 2018, sub-Clause (iii) was amended, and the registered person was required to file a statement by 31st March, 2018. Mr. Jain submits that TRAN-2 Form was still not available on the portal and the Courts have taken a judicial notice of this fact, as evident by the judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of M/s Subhas Company v. Commissioner of CGST and CX, Kolkata North Commissionerate Ors. 2020[39] G.S.T.L. 129. 7. Mr. Jain further submitted that the respondents are not permitting the Petitioner to upload TRAN-2 Form on account of an inadvertent error committed by it in filing TRAN-1 Form, since it was not able to show the available stock of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Bhargava Motors v. Union of India and Ors. 2019[26] G.S.T.L. 164., and Kusum Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. [2019] 68 GSTR 338 (Delhi)., the Court had directed the Respondents to enable the Petitioner to rectify TRAN-1 Form. 10. As can be seen from the aforesaid decisions, this Court has held that inadvertent and genuine mistakes in filling up the correct details of credit in TRAN-1 Form should not preclude taxpayers from having claims examined by the authorities in accordance with law. This Court has consistently been issuing directions to the Respondents and granting relief to such taxpayers. When the Petitioner attempted to upload TRAN-2 Form, it was prevented to do so because of the error com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... twork became operational, taxpayers genuinely faced difficulties in filing the returns and input tax credit in the GST portal. Acknowledging the procedure and difficulties in claiming input tax credit, this Court and several other High Courts have granted relief to such taxpayers. Failure on the part of the Petitioner to give relevant details in TRAN-1 Form can only be taken as a procedural lapse which should not cause any impediment to its right to claim transitional ITC. 12. We also find force in the submissions of Mr. Jain that the taxpayers were not provided sufficient time to upload the data in TRAN-2 Form. On 4th January, 2018, when the Petitioner attempted to load TRAN-2 Form, no time had been specified under the Rules, which coul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
