Page 92 - GSTL_7th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 1

50 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 36
incorrect TRAN-1 Form and after noticing the decision of Gujarat High Court in
Willowood, the Division Bench stated that they are not in agreement with the view
taken. However, we do not find there is no discussion in the said decision up-
holding the validity of Rule 117. The decision is based primarily on the Cenvat
credit being a vested right. The decision in Siddharth Enterprises of Gujarat High
Court does not refer to the decision in Willowood even though it was rendered
prior. These decisions are founded on the basis that the Cenvat credit is a vested
right guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. In none of the
decisions, Rule 117 has been struck down as arbitrary.
58. The High Courts in the above decisions have exercised writ jurisdic-
tion to direct the Respondents to give relief to the petitioners before it. The
Courts may have done so in equity jurisdiction. We have concluded that the
time-limit stipulated is neither ultra vires nor unreasonable. Issuing a writ would
mean overriding this time-limit. The concept of a time-limit under this provision
is not casual but has a larger purpose to serve. The GST Act deals with the gener-
ation and distribution of the revenue. The collected revenue is expended on vari-
ous functions for which budgetary allocations are made and time-limits are stip-
ulated for the execution of various schemes. For fiscal planning, certainty regard-
ing receipt and distribution of revenue is necessary. If relief is to be granted to
the individual Petitioner overriding the time-limit on equity, the perception of
what is equitable will differ from authority to authority. This would lead to un-
certainty. The operation of this complicated tax system will become unworkable.
The time-limit placed under the impugned rule being rooted in need to have cer-
tainty in fiscal management, we are of the opinion that equity jurisdiction ought
not to be exercised.
59. As another facet of arbitrariness it was argued that insistence on
submitting declaration electronically creates a classification between those with
needed capabilities and equipment and those who do not and hence it is viola-
tive of Article 14. There is no merit in this submission. Entire GST system, not
only section 140 and Rule 117 envisage electronic filing. It has an intricate inter-
linking regulated by software and data analysis. Numerous departments and
enactments now mandate electronic submission of forms. With the ever-
expanding sweep of digital data pervading almost all walks of life, it will be a
retrograde step to declare a provision unreasonable because it mandates elec-
tronic compliance, especially when the enactment in question is an intricate tax
regime powered by a software-based system.
60. To summarize, therefore, the time-limit stipulated under Rule 117 is
neither unreasonable or arbitrary nor violative of Article 14. This rule is in ac-
cordance with the purpose laid down in the Act.
61. Now we turn to the third aspect of the matter that is the meaning of
the phrase ‘technical difficulties’ under Rule 117A and the role of the IT Re-
dressal Cell and whether by creating categories discretion is being fettered; To
appreciate the Petitioners’ challenge, the procedure to be followed while submit-
ting Form TRAN-1 needs to be narrated. The Respondents have placed on record
the procedure, which is: First, the taxpayer has to log into the GST Portal. Then
navigate to the TRAN-1 Form in Services Section. If the TRAN-1 is already sub-
mitted or filed, then a Reopen button is provided to the taxpayer to modify pre-
viously submitted/filed data or for adding missing records. Once the taxpayer

GST LAW TIMES  7th May 2020  92