TRAN-1 can’t be Re-Opened for Omission to Include certain Transactions: Gujarat HC [Read Judgment]

The Gujarat High Court, last week dismissed a petition seeking re-opening of TRAN-1 by holding that no such direction can be given to the department for the omission to include certain transactions by the assessee.

The petitioner filed TRAN-1 within the time originally permitted. After the time limit was over, the petitioner noticed that three transactions which were in pipeline when the GST was brought into force, due to oversight, were not included in such declaration. After noticing the error, the petitioner approached the authority to correct the declaration, however, the request was not approved.

Before the High Court, the petitioners submitted that the statutory provisions concerning the filing of the returns envisage scope for correction of the returns, for which, time is granted up to the due date for filing the returns. He submitted that during the transitory period, the number of changes took place. It was legitimate that some of the transactions may have been overlooked by the assessees. Not granting opportunity to correct the declaration would result in the substantial financial loss to the petitioner and other similarly situated dealers.

Dismissing the petition, Justices Akil Kureshi and B.N Karia held that “we do not see any scope for directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to correct the TRAN1 declaration already made. We may recall, such time limit initially provided in the rules was extended from time to time and lastly upto 27.12.2017. Further, the limited extension has been granted to cover cases where genuine hardships were felt in uploading said declarations due to technical glitches.”

The bench further refused to follow the Bombay High Court order in O/E/N India Ltd. & Anr. And said that “The case of Bombay High Court in case of O/E/N India Ltd. & Anr. (supra) was very different. The petitioner had pointed out a typographical error in filling up figure of unused CENVAT credit available, the Court was of the opinion that said mere typographical error should not be the governing factor for deciding substantive rights. The Court primafacie felt that section 172 of the Act which enables the Government to take the necessary decision to avoid hardships could be utilized. The present situation is entirely different.”