- The respondent (petitioner before single bench) had tried to avail the transitional benefit of transfer of unavailed CENVAT credit to the electronic credit ledger under the GST regime.
- To avail of the credit, he had to fill GST TRAN-1 Form but even after several attempts he was unable to do so and failed to take credit of the input tax balance lying in its CENVAT credit ledger.
- He filed a complaint by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org but there was no response. Hence he filed a writ petition before the single judge of the court.
- The single judge disposed of the petition and directed the IT Redressal Committee of the GST Council to take consideration of the petitioner's request under section 140 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and the appellant revenue department aggrieved with the order filed a writ petition before this bench.
SUBMISSIONS BEFORE SINGLE JUDGE
- The respondents submitted that the attempt of petitioner was to undermine the limitation period mentioned under Rule 117 of the CGST Rules 2017, where the filing should be done within 90 days.
- They also submitted that the time limit was extended from time to time, and the attempts of the petitioner were highly delayed.
OBSERVATION AND JUDGMENT OF THE PRESENT BENCH
- The court observed that there was an IT glitch that prevented the Bonafide attempts of the respondent to comply with the process of filing forms.
- The court noted that the respondent mailed the to the help desk at GST along with the screenshots informing about the error while filing and the statement of the appellant that there was nothing to show that respondent tried to file the declaration was incorrect.
- The court held that the discrimination in time limits to allow the availing of Input Tax Credit (ITC) made in pre-GST and post-GST regimes is arbitrary and unreasonable.
- The court dismissed the appeal and stated that technical glitches at the transition stage to GST should not affect the statutory right of dealers and attempts should be made not to deprive a dealer of Bonafide claim because of technicalities.
What do you think of this case?