Gayatri Agro Agencies vs The Union Of India And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 12728 Bom

                                        1                   926-WP.5878-20.odt

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     926 WRIT PETITION NO.5878 OF 2020

                           GAYATRI AGRO AGENCIES
                                   VERSUS
                       THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

                                   ...
             Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Sikchi Aditya N.
           ASGI for Respondent Nos.1 & 6 : Mr. A. G. Talhar.
      Advocate for Respondent Nos.2, 3, 5 : Mr. Dawalkar P. P. And
                           Mr. Kothari P. P.
                                   ...

                               CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, AND
                                       S. G. MEHARE, JJ.

                               DATE      : 07.09.2021

     PER COURT :-

1. The petitioner-establishment has put forth prayer clauses

"A", "B" and "C" as under :

"A) The Hon'ble High Court may be pleased be issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ and thereby direct the Respondents to permit the petitioner to submit its revised FORM GST-TRAN-1 return electronically on the common portal and allow the petitioner to upload the revised FORM GST TRAN-1 as per the provisions of Rule 120-A of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 by opening the electronic/common portal for that purpose."

"B) The Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ and thereby direct the Respondents to permit the petitioner to tender the revised FORM GST TRAN-1 form manually to the authorities as per the provisions of Rule 120-A of Central Goods and Service Tax

2 926-WP.5878-20.odt

Rules, 2017 and thereafter process the claim of the petitioner for the Input Tax Credit in accordance with law."

"C) The Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ and thereby quash and set aside the order dated 12.06.2020 of the Respondent No.5 informing the decision of disapproval of the claim/grievance of the petitioner."

2. The learned advocate submits, on instructions, that

prayer clause "D" as regards challenge to Rule 117 of the

Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 and prayer clause

"F" in relation thereto, are being given up by the petitioner and

they may be treated as deleted from the prayers. We record

the said statement and prayer clauses "D" and "F" stand

deleted.

3. We have considered the submissions of the learned

advocates for the respective sides. The grievance of the

petitioner is that after the introduction of the Central Goods

and Service Tax Act, 2017 and Central Goods and Service Tax

Rules, 2017, there were several glitches in the online

submission of forms software owing to the new regime. Under

the new regime, the establishments like the petitioner were

permitted to carry forward existing accrued CENVAT credit

upto 30.06.2017 under Section 140 of the Act.

3 926-WP.5878-20.odt

4. On 28.08.2017, the petitioner uploaded its form GST

TRAN-1 claiming a credit of Rs.66,45,387/- under the Value

Added Tax (VAT) and Rs.7,77,489/- under the Excise Act. The

form was uploaded in view of the acknowledgment by the GST

Department. When the petitioner checked from the

Dasboard / Homepage, the petitioner read the message as

"pending invoices" (these will be added after validation). The

petitioner realizes that the form has not been properly

uploaded due to the glitches in the portal of the GST. The

petitioner, therefore, lodged complaints as regards the glitches

and the copies of the same are placed on record. After lodging

multiple complaints on 09.12.2017, 27.12.2017 and

30.12.2017, the petitioner received a communication on

02.01.2018 and 08.01.2018 from the GSTN Portal that the

grievance of the petitioner cannot be resolved as the period for

uploading form GST TRAN-1 return had expired.

5. In view of the above, the petitioner attempted a manual

submission of its revised form GST TRAN-1 and informed the

Department about the technical glitches in the portal, on

08.01.2018 and 20.02.2018. Since his grievance was not

4 926-WP.5878-20.odt

redressed, the petitioner approached this Court by preferring

Writ Petition No.3127 of 2018. By order dated 23.04.2018,

respondent No.4 was directed to take a decision on the

representation of the petitioner tendered on 20.02.2018 within

four (4) weeks. Response to this order is by the communication

at page No.83 of the petition paper book by which the

Superintendent CGST and Central Excise, Amalner Range

informed the petitioner as under :

"To, M/s. Gayatri Agro Agency, Parola.

Please refer to your application to re-open Tran-1, for submission of excise claim.

"In this regard it is informed that Tran-1 claims filed by M/s Ram Agro Agencies, M/s Vijay Agro Centre & M/s Gayatri Agro Agency has not been approved by the ITGRC Committee" This is submitted for information please.

--

Regards Superintendent CGST & Central Excise Amalner Range, Jalgaon Division"

6. The grievance of the petitioner is that, on the one hand,

his entire TRAN-1 form could not be uploaded due to the

technical glitches in the GSTN Portal and on the other hand,

the respondent authorities are not allowing the petitioner,

either to revise the proposal or submit the hard copy of the

proposal, manually. Consequentially, the accrued CENVAT

5 926-WP.5878-20.odt

credit available to the petitioner has not been allowed to be

utilized as the form of the petitioner was not appropriately

loaded due to the glitches in the GSTN Portal.

7. The learned advocate representing the GST authorities,

relies upon the affidavit-in-reply filed by Commissioner, Central

GST and Central Excise Commissionerate, Nashik dated

24.08.2021. It is contended that the petitioner cannot be

allowed to file revised returns under form GST TRAN-1 after it

was once filed. Such opportunity to file revised TRAN-1 has

been given once, which is clear from paragraph No.28 of the

petition. We find from paragraph No.28 that the petitioner

contends that it could not file revised returns under Rule 120-A

of the Act, as the GSTN Portal had suffered glitches.

Thereafter, the petitioner has only been making representations

and complaints and had never filed a revised return under

form GST TRAN-1.

8. The petitioner submits that he re-uploaded his form

TRAN-1 on 10.11.2017. Owing to this successful uploading, his

returns have been tendered, without any glitches for the first

time. Now, the petitioner desires to submit a revised form

6 926-WP.5878-20.odt

which is permissible under Rule 120-A. The Department is

treating the said revised form as being a Second Revision

sought by the petitioner, which is apparently impermissible in

law.

9. We, therefore, noticed the controversy that after the

petitioner first failed in making a complete uploading of the

TRAN-1 form, he could succeed in uploading the said form

without glitches on 10.11.2017. The revision that is sought, is

not being accepted by the authorities. His first revision is

dated 08.01.2018, which was not being accepted online and,

therefore, he tendered the same manually to the

Superintendent GST Office, Jalgaon. This is not being accepted

on the ground that it amounts to a Second Revision and the

Rules do not permit a Second Revision.

10. In the backdrop of these factors, we called upon the

learned advocate representing the GST and Central Excise

Authorities to point out from the affidavit-in-reply or through

any document, as to which was the first revision filed by the

petitioner. On the basis of the record, the learned counsel

submits that the Department has been treating the uploading

7 926-WP.5878-20.odt

of the TRAN-1 form online which was a second attempt by the

petitioner, to be the first revision. We find from the contents of

the TRAN-1 form that the successful attempt of the petitioner

in uploading the form online was nothing new but the exact

copy of the form which he had attempted to submit online for

the first time and in which effort, he had been unsuccessful

because of the glitches in GSTN Portal.

11. The reproduced portion of the order passed by the

Superintendent CGST and Central Excise, Amalner Range is an

order based on the reference of the ITGRC Committee that the

TRAN-1 claims filed by the petitioner has not been approved.

No reasons are set out for disapproving the TRAN-1 claims. In

the absence of reasons, the order cannot be sustained, as it

reflects non-application of mind.

12. In view of the above, this petition is partly allowed. The

impugned order dated 12.06.2020 communicated by

respondent No.5 is quashed and set aside.

13. We permit the petitioner to tender the revised form GST

TRAN-1, online as well as by tendering a copy manually to

respondent No.4 within two (2) weeks' time. We are

8 926-WP.5878-20.odt

permitting the petitioner to submit the revised form manually,

in view of the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of the

Punjab and Haryana High Court in Adfert Technologies Pvt.

Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2019 SCC Online P & H 5701 and the

judgment delivered by the learned Division Bench of the

Gujarat High Court in Siddharth Enterprises Vs. The Nodal

Officer, 2019 (29) G.S.T.L. 664. Needless to state, respondent

No.4 would decide the revised form filed by the petitioner

online / manually in accordance with the procedure as is

prescribed.

(S. G. MEHARE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

...

vmk/-