9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 818X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of issue of the impugned order. The Revenue, aggrieved by the above order of the Learned Single Judge has preferred this intra Court appeal. 3. The respondent had lodged a claim for Input Tax / CENVAT Credit by filing form TRAN-1, admittedly, within time and disclosed a credit of Rs. 14,97,28,201/- as Balance Credit in Column 5(a) of form TRAN-1, while showing a sum of Rs. 80,98,936/- in Column 6 of form TRAN-I, though the respondent ought to have disclosed the sum of Rs. 14,97,28,201/- in Column 6 of form TRAN-1 as well, on an erroneous / mis-construction as to the purpose of the said column in form TRAN-1. 4. It is relevant to note that Input Tax / CENVAT Credit was available under the existing / prior indirect Tax laws such as VAT, Entry tax and Central Excise and Service Tax, both the State and Union intended to provide a mechanism for transition of credit that was legitimately earned and remained unutilised under various fiscal laws existing at the time of introduction of GST. With this avowed objective, the GST law permitted the registered / taxable persons under GST law to transition the credit that was earned and lying to the credit of such registered / Taxable person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... standing anything contained in sub-rule (1), the Commissioner may, on the recommendations of the Council, extend the date for submitting the declaration electronically in Form GST TRAN-1 by a further period not beyond 31st March 2019, 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." A reading of the above Rule would show that a Registered / taxable person under GST Act, intending to transition credit earned under the previous regime is under a mandate to file and lodge a claim within 90 days in Form GST TRAN-1.The 1st proviso further provides that the said period of 90 days may be extended by the Commissioner by a further period not exceeding 90 days on the recommendation of the GST Council. 7. It is undisputed that the respondent had filed their Form TRAN-1 on 30.10.2017 i.e., within the time prescribed under Section 140 of the CGST / SGST Act 2017 and declared a sum of Rs. 14,97,28,201/- in Column 5(b) of form TRAN-1 as "Balance Cenvat Credit". However, in Column 6 of form TRAN-1 with the heading "C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39;ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Nelco Limited v. Union of India [2020 SCC Online Bom 437] (Nelco), to support their contention, that Input Tax Credit is in the nature of the concession and any conditions attached thereto ought to be strictly construed including limitation, if any, prescribed for claiming such credit. There are no two views with regard to the above proposition. However, in the present case, admittedly, Form TRAN-1 has been filed by the respondent/assessee within the period prescribed and thus the above judgment holding the time limits are mandatory to lodge a claim may not advance the case of the Revenue / appellant. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of M/s.Ingersoll-Rand Technologies & Services Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Union of India & 3 others reported in 2019-TIOL-2740-HCALL- GST to submit that similar issue has been decided by the Allahabad High Court wherein it has been held that revision of Form TRAN-1 declaration cannot be permitted more than once. There appears to be distinction between the kind of rectification which was sought for by the assessee / petitioner before the Allahabad High Court in the mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , thus, the above doctrine would afortiorari apply to a claim of Input Tax Credit. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted under :- "51.The Constitution Bench then considered the doctrine of substantial compliance and "intended use". The relevant portions of the observations in Paras 31 to 34 are in the following terms : (Hari Chand case [CCE vs. Hari Chand Shri Gopal, (2011) 1 SCC 236], SCC pp.247-48) "31. Of course, some of the provisions of an exemption notification may be directory in nature and some are of mandatory in nature. A distinction between provisions of statute which are of substantive character and were built in with certain specific objectives of policy, on the one hand, and those which are merely procedural and technical in their nature, on the other, must be kept clearly distinguished..... Doctrine of substantial compliance and `intended use': 32. The doctrine of substantial compliance is a judicial invention, equitable in nature, designed to avoid hardship in cases where a party does all that can reasonably expected of it, but failed or faulted in some minor or inconsequent aspects which cannot be described as the "essence" or the "substance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondition to give effect to that doctrine. On the other hand, if the requirements are procedural or directory in that they are not of the "essence" of the thing to be done but are given with a view to the orderly conduct of business, they may be fulfilled by substantial, if not strict compliance. In other words, a mere attempted compliance may not be sufficient, but actual compliance of those factors which are considered as essential." (c) The submission of the appellant that the inadvertent mistake in filling in the wrong figures in Column 6 of Form TRAN-1 would prove fatal to the respondent's claim of ITC, even if they are otherwise entitled to, appears to be an objection which is technical and more importantly, could frustrate the very objective of extending the benefit of transition of Input Tax Credit from the erstwhile regime of GST. In this regard, it may be relevant to refer to the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in the case of Heritage Lifestyles and Developers Private Limited vs. Union of India reported in 2020 SCC 43 GSTL 33 : (2021) 1 Bom CR 345: (2021) 86 GSTR 321, wherein after finding that the respondent could not file the Form TRAN-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rpretation", 1984 edition at page 683 which reads as under: "Unnecessary technicality : Modern Courts seek to cut down technicalities attendant upon a statutory procedure where these cannot be shown to be necessary to the fulfillment of the purposes of the legislation." (d) While there is no doubt that Input tax credit is a concession, and conditions attached thereto ought to be strictly complied, it is equally true that the Input Tax Credit is a beneficial scheme which is framed in larger public interest to bring down the cascading effect of multiple taxes / multipoint taxes. One cannot lose sight of the larger objective behind the Input Tax Scheme. Keeping the above objective in mind and also the fact that GST was a new law and there were a number of initial hiccups which was taken cognizance of, by the Legislature and Executive and remedial actions were duly taken, including extending timelines for statutory compliance to ameliorate the difficulties faced by the trade, thus, denial to transition of credit for a clerical mistake may not be warranted. 11. It may also be relevant to refer to the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in the case of Heri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
