9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was no response till the order rejecting the request came to be passed. It is very clear that the petitioner did make efforts to get form TRAN-1 uploaded or in the alternative to accept the application manually and do the needful. Identical issue decided in the case of BHARGAVA MOTORS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS. [ 2019 (5) TMI 899 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and KUSUM ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., SANKO GOSEI TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS. [ 2019 (7) TMI 945 - DELHI HIGH COURT] where the High Court disposed of the Writ Petition directing the respondents to either open the portal to enable the petitioner to again file form GST TRAN-1 electronically or in the alternative accept the form GST TRAN-1 presented manually on or before 30.9.2019 - Similar such view came to be taken by a Division Bench of this Court in LANTECH PHARMACEUTICALS LTD, SRIKAKULAM VERSUS THE PRL COMMISSIONER VISAKHAPATNAM [ 2019 (10) TMI 477 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] . Thus, it is not a case where the petitioner has not made any efforts in getting TRAN-1 form uploaded in the GST portal. Efforts were made in December, 2017 and thereafter in the years 2018 and 2019, which is evident fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncillary services. For the services rendered by them in pre-GST era, the petitioner was registered with service tax vide registration Nos.AACCK8209QST001 and AACCK8209QST002 in Kurnool and Anantapur divisions. The petitioner was also registered as an assessee in VAT Department vide TIN 3757022957 prior to the introduction of GST. After 1.7.2017, the petitioner registered with GST vide registration No.37AACCK8209Q1ZX and are assigned to the jurisdiction of Kurnool-II Bench. It is further to be noted that, in order to avoid double taxation on the duty paid goods, the Government has brought the transitional provisions of CGST Act, 2017, namely, Section 140(3) of CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 117 of CGST Rules, which allows a person, who was not liable for registration under the erstwhile law or, who was engaged in the manufacture of exempted goods or provisions of exempted goods or a first stage dealer or second stage dealer or a depot of manufacturer to claim credit of eligible duties in respect of inputs held in stock and inputs contained in semi-finished or finished goods held in stock as on 30.6.2017. The averments in the affidavit show that the petitioner, being a first stage dea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the 1st respondent intimated to the petitioner that his request was not approved on the ground that there is no evidence of error or submission/filing of TRAN-1. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition came to be filed. 3. A very elaborate and detailed counter came to be filed denying the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. In substance the gist of the counter is that, after December, 2017, there is no material on record to show that the petitioner herein has made any effort to get his form TRAN-1 uploaded in the GST web portal. In fact, according to respondents, there is no material on record to show that he ever made any attempt to claim input tax credit after December, 2017. 4. However, as stated by us earlier, there were exchange of letters in the year 2018 as well as in the year 2019, between the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2, with regard to the inability of the petitioner to upload form TRAN-1, due to freezing of portal or the portal not getting opened. In fact, the material filed along with the counter itself show that in the month of February, 2019 also the petitioner made a request to the Deputy Commissioner, GST Cell, C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner to file the rectified TRAN-1 electronically or accept the same manually. The said decision has also been followed by this court in M/s Aadinath Industries Anr vs Union of India, W.P. (C) 9775/2019, decided on 20.09.2019; Lease Plan India Private Limited vs Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors, W.P.(C) 3309/2019, decided on 13.09.2019; Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Through its Branch Commercial Manager vs Union of India, W.P.(C) 8075/2019, decided on 15.10.2019. The decision of this Court in Krish Automotors Pvt. Ltd. v UOI 2019-TIOL-2153- HC-DEL-GST has also been followed by the Punjab Haryana High Court in Adfert Technologies Pvt Ltd v Union of India in CWP No. 30949/2018 (O M) decided on 04.11.2019 . The relevant paragraphs of M/s Blue Bird (supra) read as under: 10. Having carefully examined those decisions, the Court is unable to find any distinguishing feature that should deny the Petitioner a relief similar to the one granted in those cases. In those cases also, there was some error committed by the Petitioners which they were unable to rectify in the TRAN-1 Form and as a result of which, they could not file the returns in TRAN-2 F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by this Court in Kusum Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 12. In 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-instead 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. It should be noted at this stage that although the system provided for revision of a return, the deadline for making the revision coincided with the last date for filing the return i.e. 27th December, 2017. Thus, such facility was rendered impractical and meaningless. 6. The factual position in the present case is not any different. Though, the case of the petitioner cannot be strictly categorized as covered by technical glitches , however, as held in M/s Blue Bird (supra), the GST System is still in a trial and error phase‟ as far as its implementation is concerned and although the failure was on the part of the Petitioner, the error was inadvertent. The petitioner does not have any evidence or proof in support of his submission that the personnel resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
