TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 58
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax credit to the tune of Rs. 4,85,684/-. Following the introduction of GST regime, transition and migrations from the earlier system had to be made. The petitioner like any other dealer was required to file the necessary GST TRAN-1. While filing the said Form, instead of entering the details under column 7(a), the petitioner erroneously entered the details against column 7(d). The column 7(d) would apply only in cases of stock of goods not supported by invoices/documents evidencing payment of tax. In the case on hand, the petitioner was very much having the necessary invoices/documents evidencing payment of tax. Since the petitioner did not correctly enter the details, the petitioner was not given the consequential credit under the new GST....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e filed. 4.The learned counsel for the writ petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and wanted this Court to grant the relief as prayed for. 5.The prayer in the writ petition is contested by the respondents. The primary stand taken by the respondents is that the petitioner was specifically given time till 27.12.2017 to set right any mistake that might have been committed by them. The petitioner had failed to avail the opportunity granted by the respondents. This stand set out in the impugned order is reiterated in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit also. The learned standing counsel would place reliance on Rule 120A of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The said ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wrong column. Therefore, I am of the view that grant of interim stay by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Tara Exports' case cannot be put against the petitioner. 7.The learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No.3798 of 2019 (M/s.Blue Bird Pure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others). In the said case also the dealer had committed an inadvertent error in showing the available stock of goods in column 7(d) of the Form insetad of 7(a) of the Form. The Hon'ble Division Bench of Delhi High Court held as follows:- "In the present case, the Court is satisfied that, although the failure was on the part of the Petitioner to fill up the data....