2018 (10) TMI 876 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT – [2018] 59 G S.T.R. 307 (Guj), 2018 (19) G. S. T. L. 440 (Guj.) – Correction of errors in the TRAN-1 declarations – migration to GST Regime – transitional provisions – Three transactions which were in pipeline when the GST was brought into force, due to oversight, were not included in such declaration. – Held that:- There is no scope for directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to correct the TRAN1 declaration already made. We may recall, such time limit initially provided in the rules was extended from time to time and lastly upto 27.12.2017. Further, limited extension has been granted to cover cases where genuine hardships were felt in uploading said declarations due to technical glitches.
–
The case of Bombay High Court in case of O/E/N India Ltd. & Anr. [2018 (10) TMI 199 – BOMBAY HIGH COURT] was very different. The petitioner had pointed out a typographical error in filling up figure of unused CENVAT credit available, the Court
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ction 164 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and also offends Article 14, Article 19(1)(g), Article 265 and Article 300A of the Constitution of India, 1950; (b) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of declaration and/or any other appropriate writ(s) declaring Section 164 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 as unconstitutional as it suffers from vice of excessive delegation; (c) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ(s), direction(s) and/or pass necessary order(s) directing the respondents to allow rectification of GST – Tran1, to enable credit of carry forward of Credit on eligible duties of goods and services in transit in electronic credit ledger in terms of Section 140(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, either by opening of GSTN portal or to allow it to be filed manually; 2. In view of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of Willowood Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India dated 12th/19th September 2018, in Special
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ed from time to time. Final extension was granted till 27.12.2017. 5. The time limit provisions contained in rule 117 of the respective rules came to be challenged before this Court in case of Willowood Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Petitioner therein had challenged section 140(5) of the CGST Act also. Both these challenges were repealed by the High Court by the said judgment. In such judgment, it was noticed that the Government had amended rule 117 providing for limited extension of time for filing TRAN1 declarations with the permission of the concerned Commissioner if previously within the time granted, the same could not be done on account of technical glitches on the official portal. 6. Case of the petitioner is that such TRAN1 was actually filed within the time originally permitted. After the time limit was over, the petitioner noticed certain errors in the declaration made. Three transactions which were in pipeline when the GST was brought into force, due to oversight, were not in
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
retation of the provision should be granted. His attempt was therefore to persuade us to apply the provisions for correction of returns to the situation where TRAN1 declaration may have been incorrectly filed. He also drew our attention to an interim order passed by the Bombay High Court on 26.09.2018 in Writ Petition No.2086 of 2018 in case of O/E/N India Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. in which, various recommendations were made to enable the petitioner to correct TRAN1 declaration where the figure of CENVAT credit available was shown as ₹ 11,10,555/instead of ₹ 1,11,05,550/in exercise of powers under section 172 of the CGST Act. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel Shri Ankit Shah for the department opposed the petition contending that this Court in case of Willowood Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.(supra) has examined the time limit provisions contained in the transitional chapter and found that the same cannot be lightly extended. He submitted that the petitioner had
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
2017 in which; as noted, subrule (1) of Rule 117 has prescribed, besides other things, the time limit for making declaration in the prescribed form for every dealer entitled to take credit of input tax under Section 140. Subrule [1] of Rule 117 thus applies to all cases of credits which may be claimed by a registered person under section 140 of the Act and is not confined to subsection [3]. This plenary prescription of time limit within which necessary declarations must be made is, in our opinion, neither without authority nor unreasonable. 25. Section 140 of the Act envisages certain benefits to be carried forward during the regime change. As is wellsettled, the reduced rate of duty or concession in payment of duty are in the nature of an exemption and is always open for the legislature to grant as well as to withdraw such exemption. As noted in case of Jayam & Company [Supra], the Supreme Court had observed that input tax credit is a form of concession provided by the legislature
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
prescribed time. As noted, subsection [1] of Section 164 of the CGST Act authorizes the Government to make rules for carrying out the provisions of the Act on recommendations of the Council. Subsection [2] of Section 164 further provides that without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of subsection [1], the Government could also make rules for all, or any of the matters, which by this Act are required to be or may be prescribed or in respect of which, provisions are to be or may be made by the rules. Combined effect of the powers conferred to subordinate legislature under subsections [1] and [2] of Section 164 of the CGST Act would convince us that the prescription of time limit under subrule [1] of Rule 117 of the CGST Rules is not ultra vires the Act. Likewise, such prescription of time limit cannot be stated to be either unreasonable or arbitrary. When the entire tax structure of the country is being shifted from earlier framework to a new one, there has to be a degree of
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ovision cannot necessarily be held to be directory in nature and must depend on the context of the statutory scheme. 27. Issue can be looked at from slightly different angle. Granting tax credit is an integral part of computation and collection of tax. Tax collection is an important element of budgetary allocations and estimation of the Union and the States. Such consideration of tax credits at such large scale cannot be allowed to linger on indefinitely which would have a direct effect on the tax collection, estimates and budgetary allocations and in turn, revenue deficit. … … 32. Thus, in the economic matters of such vast scale, the wider considerations of the State exchequer, while interpreting a statutory provisions cannot be kept out of purview. Quite apart from independently finding that the time limit provisions contained in subrule (1) of Rule 117 of the CGST Rules is not ultra vires the Act or the powers of the rule making authority, interpreting such powers as m
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Tribunal or Court in getting such tax collection declared illegal, was further influenced by the fact that any such situation could lead to utter chaos, if the claims are large. Under the circumstances, we do not find any substance in the petitioners challenge to rule 117 (1) of the CGST Rules as well as GGST Rules. 11. Under the circumstances, we do not see any scope for directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to correct the TRAN1 declaration already made. We may recall, such time limit initially provided in the rules was extended from time to time and lastly upto 27.12.2017. Further, limited extension has been granted to cover cases where genuine hardships were felt in uploading said declarations due to technical glitches. 12. The case of Bombay High Court in case of O/E/N India Ltd. & Anr. (supra) was very different. The petitioner had pointed out a typographical error in filling up figure of unused CENVAT credit available, the Court was of the opinion that said mere t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =