Page 55 - GSTL_23rd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 4

2020 ] SHREE MOTORS v. UNION OF INDIA 381
5. Further, your attention is drawn towards Commissioner (Legal) letter
dated 13-11-2018 and 1-8-2019 for further needful action in such cases. You
may consider filing an appeal in terms of C.B.I. & C. (Legal) letter F. No.
276/187/2018-CX. 8A Part dated 20-11-2018. In case any new facts has
emerged in view of Para 2 above, in these cases, the same may be brought
to the notice of this office.
6. This issues with the approval of Competent Authority.
Yours Faithfully,
Encl : as above Sd/-
(Dheeraj Rastogi)
Joint Secretary,
GST Council”
29. A perusal of the above communication dated 12-12-2019 reveals
that the GST Council referred to the ITGRC meeting, wherein, cases of the peti-
tioners were considered and indicated that their cases fell in B-1 category and B-1
category has been described as ‘as per GST system log, there are no evidences of
error or submission/filing of Tran-1’.
30. It appears that as regard the status of filing/submission of Form
GST Tran-1 on part of the petitioners is concerned, it had already been consid-
ered by the ITGRC meeting held on 26-10-2018 in the case of S.B.C.W.P. No.
226/2020 and the said aspect was not brought to the notice of the Court while
passing the order dated 21-11-2019 requiring making of the representation and
its consideration by GST Council, however, in the case of petitioner in S.B.C.W.P.
No. 440/2020 has been considered after passing of the order.
31. In view of the fact that this Court while deciding the writ petitions
filed by the petitioners had laid down the specific parameters for grant of relief
to the petitioners and it has been found by the respondents as a fact that there
was no evidences of error or submission/filing of Form GST Tran-1 by the peti-
tioners, the petitioners apparently are bound by the said outcome and, as such,
are not entitled to any relief.
32. So far as the submissions made pertaining to the vested right and
the fact that as the petitioners have admittedly paid the taxes and are, therefore,
entitled for the relief, suffice it to notice that the petitioners had questioned the
validity of provisions of Section 140 of the CGST Act and Rule 117 of the CGST
Rules in the earlier writ petition, which plea was negated.
33. The theory of vested rights and the implication of limitation on the
said aspect of vested right has been considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Osram Surya (P) Ltd. (supra), wherein, while considering the proviso II to
Rule 57G of the [Rules] of 1944 it was laid down that by providing limitation the
statute has not taken away any of the vested rights, which accrue to the manufac-
turers and what is restricted is the time, within which, the manufacturer has to
enforce that right and, therefore, once the provisions of Rule 117 of the CGST
Rules, which prescribe limitation has been upheld, the plea raised pertaining to
the denial of vested right on account of petitioners failing to submit/file Form
GST Tran-1 in time cannot be countenanced.
34. In the judgments of various High Courts cited by Learned Counsel
for the petitioners, in none of the cases the petitioners therein were given specific
directions to place material with regard to the technical glitches and attempt on
their part to file/submit the Form by the High Court in petitions filed by them
GST LAW TIMES  23rd April 2020  175