Timelines For Uploading TRAN-1 For Seeking Credit And Revision Of Credit Cannot Be One: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court has held that the timelines for uploading of TRAN 1 for seeking credit as well as seeking revision of the credit cannot be one and the same as it leads to an unworkable position.The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that the time limit for revision of a TRAN-1 return be identical to the timeline for filing of a return seeking transition. The purpose...
The Madras High Court has held that the timelines for uploading of TRAN 1 for seeking credit as well as seeking revision of the credit cannot be one and the same as it leads to an unworkable position.
The single bench of Justice Anitha Sumanth has observed that the time limit for revision of a TRAN-1 return be identical to the timeline for filing of a return seeking transition. The purpose of revision is to enable correction or modification of a return of transition. It would stand to reason that some additional time, over and above the timeline granted for a TRAN-1 return, be provided by the respondent in the latter instance.
The petitioner/assessee has sought a direction to the respondents to credit the amount relating to the input tax credit (ITC) of Rs. 16,21,227 and Rs. 4,24,136 to the electronic credit ledger of the petitioner.
The petitioner is registered with Central Excise, which, with effect from 01.07.2007, is subsumed into the Goods and Service Tax (GST) law. The petitioner was entitled to a transition of various components of the ITC in terms of Section 140 of the CGST Act. The petitioner claimed entitlement to the amounts of Rs. 16,21,227 and Rs. 4,24,136 as per the proviso to Section 140(1). A time limit was fixed with regard to the availment of transition under Rule 117 of the CGST Rules. The rule provides that every GST registrant who claims transition of credit in terms of Section 140 is to file a declaration on Form GSTR TRAN-1 in the common GST Portal within 90 days. The time limit was extended on several occasions to provide for the technical glitches plaguing the systems and in order to accommodate the difficulty faced by taxpayers as well as the officials of the Department in adapting to the new procedure. Parallelly, Rule 120A provided for the revision of the TRAN-1 already filed. Rule 120A did not specify a time limit for revision, but it did state that the limits could be deduced from the timelines outlined in Rule 117.
The extension of timelines granted in respect of the filing of TRAN-1 under Rule 117 applied equally in respect of the timelines for revision as well. As a consequence, the time limit for revision of TRAN also ended on 27.12.2017 by implication, as per order No.10/2017 dated 15.11.2017. The petitioner uploaded its TRAN-1 on December 27, 2017, claiming the transition of the CENVAT credit balance. However, an error has been occasioned in which instead of mentioning the amount as Rs.16,21,227, it has mistakenly referred to the amount as Rs.76,395.
The petitioners questioned the wisdom of the last dates for filing of TRAN-1 and TRAN-1 being one and the same, leading to an absurdity in the practical application of the respective rules.
The issue raised was whether the time limit imposed under Rule 117 of the CGST Rule was mandatory or if the directory is at large before the Bench and is not a concluded issue as on date.
The court has directed the respondent to enable filing of the revised TRAN 1 by opening the portal within eight weeks.
Case Title: M/s.Interplex Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax
Case No: W.P.No.4458 of 2019 & W.M.P.No.5032 of 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 367
Dated: 15.06.2022
Counsel For Petitioner: Advocate G.Natarajan
Counsel For Respondent: Advocate Richardson Wilson