9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 817X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts to permit the Petitioner to file the GST TRAN-1 manually and allow the credit of Input Tax Credit ('ITC') of Rs. 1,41,02,394/- claimed in accordance with Section 140 (3) of the CGST Act, 2017, in its online electronic credit ledger for payment of its output liability under the GST laws. 2. The Petitioner is a dealer/distributor of Maruti Suzuki India Limited and is engaged in the business of trading and servicing of motor vehicles and parts and accessories of said motor vehicles. On the appointed day i.e. 1st July, 2017 when the CGST Act came into force the Petitioner was entitled to a credit of Rs. 1,41,02,394/- in respect of the duties paid at the time of purchase of goods/stock on which central excise duty had already been paid. In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the declaration in GST TRAN-1 and GST TRAN-2 to enable them to claim ITC under Section 140 (3) of the CGST Act, notwithstanding that they were unable to do so within the extended time limit of 27th December, 2017. 5. This Court too has in a series of orders recognized the difficulties faced by tax payers in filing the GST TRAN-1 within 27th December, 2017. In some of those cases, the inability to file the GST TRAN-1 was due to technical glitches. 6. A sampling of such orders of this Court is as under: (i) Order dated 13th May, 2019 in W.P.(C) No. 1280/2018 (Bhargava Motors v. Union of India 2019 SCC online Del 8474) = 2019 (5) TMI 899 - DELHI HIGH COURT (ii) Order dated 22nd July, 2019 in W.P.(C) No.3798/2019 (M/s Blue Bird Pure Pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n accordance with law." 8. In Blue Bird Pure Private Limited (supra), in similar circumstances it was held in paragraphs 12 & 13 as under: "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-1 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 impr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or' phase. There is merit in the contention of the Petitioner that in its case, if it was not able to even connect with the server, then at the end of the Respondents, the fact of a failed attempt at filing a return may not even be registered on the system. Added to this is the fact that the Petitioner's eligibility to claim ITC in the sum of Rs. 65,03,389/- has not been disputed by the Respondents in their reply." 10. The Court is satisfied in the present case that the Petitioner was unable to fill the TRAN-1 Form on account of bonafide difficulties and that, therefore, the Petitioner should be afforded one more opportunity to do so. 11. Accordingly, a direction is issued to the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to either submit the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
