Facts of the Case
The petitioner, M/s Mahavir Auto Diagnostics Pvt.
Ltd., approached the Telangana High Court by filing a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner had originally sought, inter alia, a
declaration that the time limit prescribed for filing Form GST TRAN-3 under
Clauses 3 and 4 of Notification No. 21/2017-Central Excise (N.T.) dated
30.06.2017 was ultra vires Section 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule
15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2017. The petitioner also challenged the
prescribed limitation as arbitrary and unreasonable and as violating Articles
14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner further sought a declaration that
closure of the facility for filing Form GST TRAN-3 on the common GST portal was
illegal. Additional reliefs were sought for credit of Rs. 1,22,06,002/- to the
petitioner’s Electronic Credit Ledger, alternatively for refund of the accrued
pre-GST credit, or permission to claim the credit through Form GSTR-3B.
However, during the hearing, learned counsel for
the petitioner confined the relief to prayer (b), namely, the challenge to the
action of the respondents in closing the facility on the common GST portal for
filing Form GST TRAN-3.
The Central Government had issued Notification No.
21/2017-Central Excise (N.T.) dated 30.06.2017 in exercise of powers conferred
under sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2017.
Under the notification, a manufacturer registered
under the Central Excise Act, 1944, evidencing payment of excise duty specified
in the First Schedule to the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 on goods
manufactured and cleared before 01.07.2017, could issue a Credit Transfer
Document to a person who was not registered under the Central Excise Act, 1944
but was registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and held
such manufactured goods in stock on the specified date.
Under Clause 3 of the notification, the
manufacturer issuing the Credit Transfer Document was required to submit
relevant details in Table 1 of TRAN-3 on the common portal within 60 days from
the appointed date. Under Clause 4, a dealer availing credit on a Credit
Transfer Document was required to submit the details in Table 2 of TRAN-3 on
the common portal within the prescribed period.
The petitioner was a dealer availing credit on the
basis of a Credit Transfer Document. The appointed date was 01.07.2017. The
petitioner could not upload the details in Form GST TRAN-3 within the
prescribed period because of technical glitches, leading to the filing of the
writ petition.
Issues
Involved
- Whether the petitioner could be denied the opportunity to file
Table 2 of Form GST TRAN-3 merely because the prescribed period had
expired when the petitioner claimed that filing could not be completed due
to technical glitches.
- Whether closure of the facility for filing Form GST TRAN-3 on the
common GST portal justified intervention under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
- Whether the principles emerging from the Supreme Court decision in Union
of India vs Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 912,
concerning reopening of the GST portal for transitional credit claims
through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2, could support appropriate relief in relation to
the petitioner’s TRAN-3 claim.
- Whether the petitioner should be allowed to upload Table 2 of Form
GST TRAN-3, subject to verification by the respondents.
Petitioner’s
Arguments
The petitioner’s principal case was that it was
unable to upload the required details in Form GST TRAN-3 within the prescribed
period because of technical glitches.
The petitioner originally questioned the validity
of the time limitation contained in Clauses 3 and 4 of Notification No.
21/2017-Central Excise (N.T.) dated 30.06.2017 and contended that the limitation
was ultra vires Section 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 15 of the
CENVAT Credit Rules, 2017.
The petitioner had also contended that the
prescribed time restriction was arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of
Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 265 of the Constitution of India.
Further, the petitioner challenged the action of
closing the facility for filing Form GST TRAN-3 on the common GST portal as
illegal.
At the stage of hearing, however, learned counsel
for the petitioner expressly confined the case to prayer (b), concerning
closure of the facility on the common portal for filing Form GST TRAN-3.
Respondents’
Arguments
Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 filed a counter affidavit
opposing the petitioner’s plea.
The respondents contested the relief sought by the
petitioner. However, the High Court observed that it was not necessary to delve
deeply into the rival contentions in view of the Supreme Court’s directions in Union
of India vs Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 912.
Court Order
/ Findings
The Telangana High Court took note of the Supreme
Court’s decision in Union of India vs Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd., 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 912.
The High Court observed that, in Filco Trade
Centre, the Supreme Court had directed the Goods and Services Tax Network to
open the common portal for filing the concerned forms for availing transitional
credit through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 for a specified period. The period referred to
in the judgment was from 01.09.2022 to 31.10.2022 and was subsequently extended
to 30.11.2022.
The Supreme Court had further directed GSTN to
ensure that there were no technical glitches during the extended period. The
concerned officials were given 90 days thereafter to verify the veracity of the
transitional credit claims and pass appropriate orders. The Supreme Court also
directed that allowed transitional credit should be reflected in the Electronic
Credit Ledger.
Following the above principle, the Telangana High
Court held that it would be in the interest of justice to permit the petitioner
to upload Table 2 of Form GST TRAN-3 within the aforesaid period.
The Court expressly clarified that such filing
would remain subject to due verification by the respondents.
Only after due verification could the benefit be
extended to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were closed. No order as to costs
was passed.
Important
Clarification
The High Court did not grant automatic or unconditional
transitional credit of Rs. 1,22,06,002/- to the petitioner.
The relief granted was limited to permitting the
petitioner to upload Table 2 of Form GST TRAN-3 within the relevant extended
period.
The petitioner’s entitlement to the benefit
remained expressly subject to due verification by the respondents.
Therefore, the judgment distinguishes between:
- permitting procedural access to file the transitional credit form;
and
- final substantive allowance of the transitional credit claim.
The filing opportunity did not itself amount to
final acceptance of the credit. The benefit could be extended only after
verification of the petitioner’s claim by the competent authorities.
It is also important that, during the hearing, the
petitioner confined its case to prayer (b), relating to closure of the GST
portal facility for filing Form GST TRAN-3. Therefore, the Court did not
finally adjudicate all the wider constitutional and vires challenges originally
raised against the prescribed time limit.
Sections /
Statutory Provisions Involved
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- Article 14 of the Constitution of India
- Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India
- Article 265 of the Constitution of India
- Section 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944
- Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2017
- Rule 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2017
- Notification No. 21/2017-Central Excise (N.T.) dated 30.06.2017
- Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
- Form GST TRAN-3
- Table 1 of TRAN-3
- Table 2 of TRAN-3
- Credit Transfer Document provisions
- Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as referred to in the interlocutory prayer
Link to Download the Order https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783328413_1231compressed.pdf
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment