GST TRAN-1 can’t be Re-Opened in the absence of Genuine Attempt to File E-Returns or Technical Glitches: Gujarat HC [Read Order]

While rejecting a plea for re-opening the Form GST TRAN-1, a two-judge bench of the Gujarat High Court has held that the return could not be re-opened since there was no genuine honest attempt on the part of the petitioner to file the return in time or the return was failed to upload due to technical errors in the GST Portal.

Before the High Court, the petitioners pleaded for a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to carry forward balance CENVAT Credit available as on 30.06.2017 since the assesse failed to submit the return for making a declaration for the unused CENVAT Credit before the time limit.

The bench comprising Justices Akil Kureshi and B N Karia said that all throughout from 01.07.2017 till   27.12.2017, the petitioner made multiple efforts at filing the returns making necessary declarations of unused CENVAT Credit.  It was noted that the normal conduct if the attempt was made but failed, would have been to approach the Nodal Officer or grievance cell of the department during the currency of time limit for filing the return.

The Court observed that “the petitioner’s first official attempt in writing came on 27.04.2018 i.e. good four months after the time limit has lapsed. In absence of any other material suggesting genuine honest attempt on the part of the petitioner to file the return electronically, the same having failed on   account of portal error or some such technical error attributable to the department, it would not be possible to extend the time limit for the petitioner.”

“We are conscious, as pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that some High Courts have intercepted and obviated the genuine difficulties in uploading the returns due to technical errors.  However, facts of each case would have to be minutely examined. Unless there is some prima­facie evidence of genuine attempts at filing the returns having failed on account of technical errors,   accepting a bald declaration by the petitioner would virtually amount to extending the time limit for filing the returns and this would lead to chaotic results,” the bench said.