M/S Eid Parry (India) Limited vs The Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 5316 Kant

                        1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

  DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                     BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

 WRIT PETITION NO.21882 OF 2021(T-RES)

BETWEEN:

M/S EID PARRY (INDIA) LIMITED
NO.122, AJISHA, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST MAIN ROAD
MLA LAYOUT, R T NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 032
(REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER
SHRI L. JAYAPRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS)
                                      ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DAKSHINA MURTHY .R AND
    SRI. K.S. NAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

1 . THE UNION OF INDIA
    (REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY)
    MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK
    NEW DELHI-110 001

2 . ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
    COMMERCIAL TAXES
    LGSTO-152, BMTC BUILDING
    2ND FLOOR, YESHWANTHPUR
    BENGALURU-560 022

3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
    CENTRAL TAX
    CGST NODAL OFFICER FOR IT
    GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL MECHANISM
    OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF
                           2




    COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX
    BENGALURU ZONE, P B NO.5400
    C R BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001
                                  ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HEMA KUMAR, AGA FOR R-2,
    SRI. VIKRAM .S. HUILGOL, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)

     THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION
MORE PARTICULARLY ONE IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF
CERTIORARI TO QUASH SECTION 164 OF CGST/SGST
ACT, 2017 READ WITH RULES 17 AND 120A AND FORM
TRAN 1 OF THE CGST RULES, 2017 AND KARNATAKA
STATE GST RULES, 2017, AS BEING ILLEGAL,
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND UNTENABLE IN LAW OR READ
DOWN THE SAID PROVISIONS SO AS TO ENABLE
WITHOUT ANY RESTRICTIONS OR TIME LIMIT TO
REVISE/CORRECT/AMEND TRAN-1 OR FILE A FRESH
TRAN-1 AND ETC.

     THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

                       ORDER

In this petition the petitioner seeks Writ of

Mandamus to respondent Nos.2 and 3 either to open

the online portal so as to enable the petitioner to

again file the rectified TRAN-I form electronically

which was originally filed physically at Annexure-B or

to permit the petitioner to manually transition the

credit amounting to Rs.4,96,163/- to their Electronic

Credit Ledger under the GST regime and for other

reliefs.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned AGA for respondent No.2 and

Sri.Vikram.S.Huilgol, learned counsel for respondent

No.3 and perused the material on record.

3. In addition to reiterating the various

contentions urged in the petition and referring to the

documents produced by the petitioner, learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that prayer 'B'

sought for in the petition is directly covered by

decision of this Court in the case of Union of India

vs. Asaid Paints Limited and Ors., reported in

(2021) 49 GSTL 256, wherein it is held as under:

52. Therefore, on a careful consideration of the judgments cited by the learned senior counsel and learned counsel for respondents in light of the order impugned, we find that the learned single Judge has been persuaded by the judgment passed in Adfert Technologies in coming to the conclusion that the assessees herein must be granted relief by giving them another opportunity to file/revise TRAN-1 either electronically or manually on or before 31.12.2020. We find

that the reasoning of the learned single Judge and the relief granted would not call for any interference except to the extent of extending the time within which they would now have to file TRAN-1. The said time-

frame has now expired even after successive extensions on 30.08.2020. Therefore, the respondents-assessees are permitted to file/revise TRAN-1 either electronically or manually on or before 31.03.2021. The revenue is at liberty to verify the genuineness or the merits of the claim in accordance with law.

4. It is therefore, submitted that even this

petition deserves to be disposed of in terms of the

said decision by issuing appropriate direction to

respondent Nos.2 and 3.

5. Per contra learned counsel for respondents

while not disputing that the issue in controversy in

the present petition is covered by the aforesaid

decision submits that direction can be to the

respondents to permit the petitioner to file rectified

TRAN-I Form electronically or manually within a

period of 30 days from today. The said submission of

the learned counsel for the respondents is placed on

record.

6. In view of the aforesaid facts and

circumstances and in light of the decision of Hon'ble

Division Bench of this Court in the case of Union of

India vs. Asaid Paints Limited and Ors., supra, I

am of the considered opinion that present petition

also deserves to be disposed of in terms of the

aforesaid decision. In the result I pass the following:

ORDER

i) The petition is allowed in terms of the

aforesaid decision of Union of India vs.

Asaid Paints Limited and Ors., supra.

ii) The petitioner is permitted to file once

again rectified TRAN-I Form electronically

or manually within a period of 30 days

from today; pursuant to the petitioner

filing the said form, respondents would

consider and pass appropriate orders in

accordance with law.

Sd/-

JUDGE NS