2021 (5) TMI 617 - HC - GST

Carry forward of ITC - ITC, as per tran-1, was not reflected in the Electronic Credit Ledger - only grievance is that in the Electronic Credit Ledger, ITC has not been carried forward - HELD THAT - Reliance placed in the case of Hon'ble Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in M/S. BLUE BIRD PURE PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS. 2019 (7) TMI 1102 - DELHI HIGH COURT . In the said case also, the dealer had committed an inadvertent error in showing the available stock of goods in column 7(d) of the Form insetad of 7(a) of the Form - It was held in the case that I n the present case, the Court is satisfied that, although the failure was on the part of the Petitioner to fill up the data concerning its stock in Column 7(d) of Form TRAN-1instead of Column 7(a), the error was inadvertent. The Respondents ought to have provided in the system itself a facility for rectification of such errors which are clearly bona fide. Since the petitioners have clearly made out a case for grant of relief, the jurisdictional officer/6th respondent is directed to verify the correctness of the facts projected in the petition mentioned representations dated 20.02.2020 and on being satisfied with the same, forward the petitioners' case to the Nodal Officer, namely, fifth respondent herein who will coordinate with the first respondent so that the petition mentioned credit amounts filed in Form TRAN 1 are duly carried forward to the petition mentioned Electronic Credit Ledger pertaining to the respective writ petitioners - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Migration of registered dealers under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 to GST regime.
2. Non-reflection of Input Tax Credit (ITC) in Electronic Credit Ledger.
3. Discrepancy in filing Form TRAN 1.
4. Relief sought by the petitioners.
5. Applicability of a decision by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.
6. Directions to the jurisdictional officer for verification and coordination.

Analysis:

1. The petitioners, who were registered dealers under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, had to migrate to the GST regime post its implementation on 01.07.2017. Despite filing the requisite Form TRAN 1 declarations, the ITC available to them was not reflected in the Electronic Credit Ledger. The petitioners repeatedly submitted representations, contesting the respondents' claim that Form TRAN 1 was not filed. The court noted the petitioners' efforts and held that they were entitled to relief, emphasizing that the issue was no longer res integra.

2. Referring to a decision by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in a similar case, where an inadvertent error was made in filling the form, the court highlighted the need for a system that allows rectification of bona fide errors. The court found the Delhi High Court's decision directly applicable to the present case, emphasizing the importance of facilitating corrections for genuine mistakes made by dealers during filing.

3. In light of the petitioners' established case for relief, the jurisdictional officer was directed to verify the facts presented in the representations and, upon satisfaction, forward the case to the Nodal Officer for coordination. The Nodal Officer was instructed to ensure that the credit amounts filed in Form TRAN 1 are correctly carried forward to the Electronic Credit Ledger within twelve weeks from the date of the court order. Consequently, the writ petitions were allowed without any costs imposed.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the issues addressed, the legal principles applied, and the specific directions given by the court to resolve the matter effectively.