Few Judicial Decisions Taken by High Court Regarding the Form GST TRAN-1

1. HC: Allows representation before Nodal Officer for revision of GST TRAN-1

Issue: Inability to revise Form TRAN-1 and unable to take ITC of VAT

Decision:

• HC permitted the petitioner to prefer a representation to Nodal Officer with respect to inability to revise Form GST TRAN-1;
• As per the petitioner, there occurred a mistake while uploading the said Form and as such, it was unable to take ITC of VAT available on migration;
• Hence, it stated that upon representation by petitioner, Nodal Officer shall take appropriate action so as to enable petitioner to take credit of input tax available to it.

Kerala HC

[TS-280-HC-2018(KER)-NT]

2. HC: Seeks status report from Nodal Officer on application for GST TRAN-1 filing

Issue: Application filed regarding non-filing of Form Tran-1 due to technical difficulties and no response received by the authorities

Decision:

• HC called for status report from Nodal Officer w.r.t. the application filed by petitioner for submission of Form GST TRAN-1 and to carry forward the credit pursuant to technical difficulties;
• As per the petitioner, it could not upload the relevant Form GST TRAN-1 and therefore, filed an application but authorities did not respond thereto till date;
• On the other hand, Govt. submitted that should petitioner approach the Nodal Officer, grievances can be addressed;
• Accordingly, HC seeked the status report by August 20.

Calcutta HC

[TS-321-HC-2018(CAL)-NT]

3. HC: Relegates petitioner to CESTAT to contest jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority

Issue: During pendency of SCN, GST Laws changed and jurisdiction of Adjudicatory Officials reorganized.

Decision:

• HC directed the petitioner to approach CESTAT with grievance regarding jurisdiction of Commissioner GST (West) to adjudicate upon show cause notice;
• According to the petitioner, during the pendency of show cause notice, the GST laws were brought into force which resulted in reorganization of jurisdiction of existing Adjudicatory officials, especially the Commissioners of Central Excise and Customs;
• Court noted that the petitioner’s submission that Notification dated June 19, 2017 had the effect of transferring jurisdiction to Commissioner at Gurugram since it is now located there;
• Court noted that the order of Commissioner did not disclose that petitioner had urged an issue of jurisdiction and therefore, in the given circumstances, petitioner should prefer appeal before CESTAT;
• Therefore, it stated that CESTAT shall decide the appeal on merits after hearing the parties in accordance with law, and subsequently, also deal with question of jurisdiction, if urged by petitioner.

Delhi HC

[TS-320-HC-2018(DEL)-NT]

4. HC: Directs adherence to Circular for resolving TRAN-1 issues; AOs to consider applications

Issue: Whether Circular No. 39/13/2018-GST on TRAN-1 includes non-TRAN-1 issues?

Decision:

• HC directed petitioners to submit their applications for availing transitional credit in Form GST TRAN-1 to Assessing Officers / jurisdictional officer / GST officers, in accordance with CBIC Circular No. 39/13/2018-GST;
• It rejected the petitioner’s argument that said, Circular is confined to non-TRAN-1 issues, finds no such distinction therein and accordingly, holds that “the procedure of appointment of Nodal Officers and identification of issues is to be done in the manner provided in Paragraph 5 of the Circular”;
• The court remarked, “Unless the Nodal Officers are appointed, jurisdictional officer of the Assessee, namely Assessing Officer would not be in a position to forward the representations/applications filed by the Assessee pointing out the glitches they are facing while availing the credit during the transition process.”;
• The court also noted that Nodal Officers have been appointed at both Central & State level to resolve IT grievances of taxpayers, HC instructs Assessing Officers to forward the applications to such Officers who will, in consultation with GSTN, forward the same to grievance committee who in turn, would take an appropriate decision in the matter.

Madras HC

[TS-322-HC-2018(MAD)-NT]