TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icate claim of the Petitioner that denial of unutilized credit to those dealers who are unable to furnish evidence of attempt to upload TRAN-I would amount to violation of Article 14 as well Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The Respondents are directed to permit Petitioner to upload TRAN-I on or before 30.06.2020 and in case Respondent fails to do so, the Petitioner would be at liberty to avail ITC in question in GSTR-3B of July 2020 - Petition allowed. - CWP No.8369 of 2020(O&M) - - - Dated:- 19-6-2020 - Mr. Justice Jaswant Singh And Mr. Justice Sant Parkash For the Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Goyal,Advocate ORDER JASWANT SINGH, J . Hearing conducted through Video Conferencing. 1 . The Petitioner thr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner contended that issue involved is squarely covered by judgment of this Court in the case of Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India 2019-TIOL-2519-HC-P HGST. The SLP filed against aforesaid decision stands dismissed. Delhi High Court in the case of Brand Equity Treaties Ltd. and others vs. Union of India 2020-TIOL-900-HC-Del-GST following decision of this Court and various other High Courts has permitted Petitioners to file TRAN-I on or before 30.06.2020. Delhi High Court has further directed Respondents to permit all other similarly situated tax payers to file TRAN-I on or before 30.06.2020. Delhi High Court has further vide order dated 16.06.2020 in SKH Sheet Metals Components vs. Union of India WP(C) 13151 of 2019 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y return GSTR-3B. Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of SKH Sheet Metals Components vs. Union of India WP(C) 13151 of 2019, vide order dated 16.06.2020 has permitted Petitioner to revise TRAN-I on or before 30.06.2020. Delhi High Court while passing aforesaid order has relied upon its recent decision in Brand Equity Treaties Ltd. and others vs. Union of India (Supra) wherein Court had held that Government cannot adopt different yardsticks while evaluating conduct of the tax payers and its own conduct, acts and omissions. It would be profitable to extract relevant paragraphs of judgment of Delhi High Court in Brand Equity : 18. In above noted circumstances, the arbitrary classification, introduced by way of sub Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dge and skill to operate the system. It is very unfair on the part of the respondents, in these circumstances, to expect that the taxpayers should have been fully geared to deal with the new system on day-one, when they themselves were completely ill-prepared, which led to creation of a complete mess. The respondents cannot adopt different standards one for themselves, and another for the taxpayers. The GST regime heralded the system of seamless input tax credits. The successful migration to the new system was a formidable and unprecedented task. The fractures in the system, after its launch, became visible as taxpayers started logging in closer to the deadline. They encountered trouble filing the returns. Petitioners who are large and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re could be various different types of technical difficulties occurring on the common portal which may not be solely on account of the failure to upload the form. The access to the GST portal could be hindered for myriad reasons, sometimes not resulting in the creation of a GST log-in record. Further, the difficulties may also be offline, as a result of several other restrictive factors. It would be an erroneous approach to attach undue importance to the concept of technical glitch only to that which occurs on the GST Common portal, as a pre-condition, for an assesee/tax payer to be granted the benefit of Sub- Rule (1A) of Rule 117. The purpose for which Sub- Rule (1A) to Rule 117 has been introduced has to be understood in the right pers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we are also of the view that the CENVAT credit which stood accrued and vested is the property of the assessee, and is a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution. The same cannot be taken away merely by way of delegated legislation by framing rules, without there being any overarching provision in the GST Act. We have, in our judgment in A.B. Pal Electricals (supra) emphasized that the credit standing in favour of the assessee is a vested property right under Article 300A of the Constitution and cannot be taken away by prescribing a time-limit for availing the same. Emphasis Supplied In the above findings, Delhi High Court though has not declared Rule 117 (1A) ultra vires the constitution, nonetheless treated as v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
