9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner - HELD THAT:- This is a case, where admittedly Petitioner could not file GST TRAN-1 on or before 27.12.2017 but had manually applied for GST TRAN-1 on 7.5.2018 as per Circular dated 03.04.2018 within the timeline as per the date extended by this Court. Also admittedly the Respondents have found the Petitioner to be eligible for credit amounting to ₹ 78,62,466/-. But the credit for the same has been denied as the ITGRC found that the Petitioner has not tried to save or submit or file TRAN-1 before 27.12.2017 - We are informed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner which is not controverted by the learned Sr. counsel for the Respondents that this information of rejection of the Petitioner s application for manual GST TRAN-1 has not been communicated to the Petitioner despite several reminders/ communications from the Petitioner and it is only by way of the affidavit in reply filed to this Petition that the Petitioner has become aware of the rejection. As admittedly in this case the Respondents have found the Petitioner to be eligible for input credit amounting to ₹ 78,62,466/-, in our view the finding of the ITGRC would in the face of the admission by the Res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing beyond the legislative competence of Parliament under Article 269A of the Constitution of India in so far as it is impugned and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the facts and circumstance of the case and thus render justice; (b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records pertaining to the Petitioner's case and after going into the validity and legality of the provisions, direct the Respondents to pass such directions to allow the petitioner to file Tran-1 electronically and carry forward the eligible Cenvat credit in the electronic credit ledger/ Input tax credit account; (c) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records pertaining to the Petitioner case and direct Respondents to either accept copy of TRAN-1 in physical form and give due credit from back end or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to lack of awareness of the procedures, technical glitches, GST being new and a complex system to operate. The Petitioner has annexed screenshot being Exhibit-H to the Petition to demonstrate technical glitches. 8. It is submitted by the Petitioner that upon inquiry about the form TRAN 1, the Petitioner was assured that sufficient time would be provided and further extension beyond 27th December, 2017 would be granted as there were lots of other extensions taking place in the implementation of various modules/forms of GST. 9. Petitioner then wrote a letter dated 7.5.2018 to Respondent No. 5 informing the latter that it was unable to fill up and file TRAN 1 form within the appointed due time. Petitioner also drew the attention of Respondent No. 5 towards CBIC Circular dated 3.4.2018, wherein opportunity to file TRAN-1 was given to all assessees who were unable to file the TRAN-1 due to technical difficulties and to make an application for the redressal of grievances. By the said letter, Petitioner provided details as per Circular No. 39/13/2018-GST dated 03.04.2018 and requested Respondent No. 5 to redress its grievances. 10. It is submitted that vide letter dated 18.05.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entral Excise, Mumbai Zone for further action. However, the Petitioner s application was not approved by the ITGRC under the category description The Tax Payer has neither tried for saving/submitting or filing TRAN-1 . 17. In the affidavit-in-reply it has also been stated that though the Petitioner was found to be eligible for credit amounting to ₹ 78,62,466/-, it was denied by ITGRC as there was no log of such attempt made by it. 17.1. Petitioner has filed affidavit in rejoinder stating that the NELCO decision (Supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the same are distinguishable on facts. 18. Mr. Raichandani, learned counsel for the Petitioner has specifically drawn our attention to Exh. N to the Writ Petition being communication dated 24.5.2018 to submit that the application of the Petitioner for manual GST TRAN-1 in terms of the said circular dated 3.4.2018 which has been filed within time has been verified by the jurisdictional office. He would submit that when Respondents themselves have verified the input tax credit due to the Petitioner and when the Respondents themselves have found that the Petitioner is eligible for credit amounting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner is eligible for input tax credit but have rejected the claim because the ITGRC has not approved it saying that the tax payer has neither tried for saving/submitting or filing TRAN-1. There is no further explanation or clarification on this issue by the Respondents except to state the ITGRC description viz. The tax payer has neither tried for saving/submitting or filing TRAN1 . Therefore it would be not necessary for us to even deal with the Circular under which the application for manual TRAN-1 has been made. When there is no dispute to the fact that the Petitioner is otherwise eligible for credit of ₹ 78,62,466/- then to deny the benefit of such Input credit merely on technical grounds cannot be justified. Merely on technical ground an admitted input credit is sought to be denied to the Petitioner. That according to us would be wholly unfair and a travesty of justice. It is in these facts and circumstances that we are compelled to invoke our writ jurisdiction in this case. 23. In this context, we would like to refer to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner (Supra). That was a case where th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
