2019 (11) TMI 1252 - HC - GST

Unable to upload Form GST TRANS-I - transitional input tax credit - transition to GST regime - benefit of the Circular No.39/13/2018-GST dated 03.04.2018 - HELD THAT - The nature of reliefs sought in the present petition and the facts disclosed herein are fully covered by the decision of this Court in M/S. BLUE BIRD PURE PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS. 2019 (7) TMI 1102 - DELHI HIGH COURT , wherein the Court had directed the respondents to either open the online portal or to enable the petitioner to file the rectified Form TRAN-1 electronically or accept the same manually. The factual position in the present case is not any different and thus, the present petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to either open the online portal so as to enable the petitioner to file the Form TRAN-1 electronically, or to accept the same manually on or before 09.12.2019. Respondents are directed to process the petitioner s claim in accordance with law once the Form GST TRAN 1 is filed - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to file a counter affidavit by the respondents.
2. Petition seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
3. Technical glitches preventing the petitioner from filing a claim for tax credit.
4. Extension of the deadline for filing claims.
5. Inaction by the respondents despite reminders.
6. Petitioner's willingness to re-file the form if permitted.
7. Reliance on previous court decisions for similar reliefs.

Analysis:
1. The judgment begins by noting the absence of a counter affidavit from the respondents despite multiple opportunities, leading to the closure of their right to file one.
2. The petition under Article 226 seeks relief related to the transition of credit on stock held as of a specific date under the CGST Act.
3. The petitioner, engaged in industrial automation, faced technical glitches preventing the filing of claims for tax credit by the specified deadline.
4. Despite attempts and representations made by the petitioner, the credit was not reflected due to system errors, leading to a delay in filing the claim.
5. The petitioner, aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents despite extensions and reminders, filed the present writ petition seeking relief.
6. The petitioner expressed willingness to drop the challenge to statutory provisions if allowed to re-file the form.
7. The court considered previous decisions where similar reliefs were granted to other parties in comparable situations, leading to the allowance of the present petition.
8. The court directed the respondents to either open the online portal for filing or accept the form manually, with a deadline provided for compliance.
9. Once the form is filed, the respondents are instructed to process the petitioner's claim in accordance with the law, concluding the disposal of the petition in the specified terms.