Court orders extension for GST Tran-1 filing, allows manual filing if portal issue persists.

The court granted the petitioner's request for a writ of mandamus directing the GST council respondent to extend the time period for filing GST Tran-1. The court instructed the respondents to open the portal or allow manual filing if the portal remained closed by a specified date. The petitioner was permitted to pay taxes using the regular electronic system for credits. The respondents were given time to file a counter affidavit, and the matter was scheduled for further proceedings to address the petitioner's concerns regarding potential loss of credit due to electronic system failure.

---

---

Issues:
1. Petition seeking writ of mandamus to extend time period for filing GST Tran-1.
2. Allegation of electronic system failure on last filing date causing potential loss of credit.
3. Direction to respondents to open portal or entertain manual filing if portal not opened by specified date.
4. Provision for payment of taxes using regular electronic system for credits.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner approached the court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the GST council respondent to extend the time period for filing GST Tran-1 due to the petitioner's application not being entertained on the last date of filing. The petitioner requested to file the complete GST TRAN-1 for necessary transactional credit as per amended Rule 117 (1A).

2. The petitioner alleged in the petition that despite multiple attempts on the last filing date, the electronic system of the respondent did not respond, potentially causing a loss of entitled credit over time. This failure of the electronic system was highlighted as a crucial issue leading to the petition.

3. The court directed the respondents to either open the portal before a specified date or entertain the GST TRAN-1 of the petitioner manually if the portal remains closed. In such a scenario, the respondents were instructed to verify the credits claimed by the petitioner and pass orders accordingly. Additionally, the court ensured that the petitioner would be allowed to pay taxes using the regular electronic system maintained for credit consideration.

4. Furthermore, the learned Counsel for the respondents was given a month to file a counter affidavit, and the matter was listed for a specific date for further proceedings. The judgment provided a clear direction to address the petitioner's concerns regarding the filing of GST Tran-1 and the potential loss of credit due to the failure of the electronic system on the last filing date.

---