Madras HC condones procedural lapse in filing TRAN-1

While filing Form TRAN-1, the Petitioner had inadvertently claimed a lower amount of credit vis-à-vis what was available to them. The Petitioner had made another error by updating the difference in table 7d instead of the prescribed form 7b. In order to rectify the said errors, the Petitioner had made a request for extension, which had been rejected by the Revenue on the ground that several opportunities were extended to taxpayers for rectification of errors.

Aggrieved, the Petitioner challenged the rectification rejection order before the Madras HC. The HC observed that the error was inadvertent in nature. It was further observed that the era of GST is nascent and therefore, a rigid view should not be taken in procedural matters. It was further observed that the consequence of such transition is only the availment of the credit and not the utilization itself.

In view of the above, the HC allowed the Petition and consequently directed the Revenue to enable the modification and transition.

Carlstahl Craftsman Enterprises Private Limited [W.P. No.11119 of 2020]

Disclaimer:

The information provided in this update is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal opinion or advice. Readers are requested to seek formal legal advice prior to acting upon any of the information provided herein. This update is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or corporate body. There can be no assurance that the judicial/ quasi judicial authorities may not take a position contrary to the views mentioned hereinrra quis.