Court Orders Respondents to Assist with Filing TRAN-1 Form, Emphasizes Practical Approach

The court directed the respondents to facilitate the filing of the TRAN-1 form either electronically or manually by a specified date, considering technical issues and the petitioner's persistent efforts. The court emphasized the need for a practical approach in addressing challenges with the GST system and disposed of the writ petition accordingly.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Petitioner's request to open the GSTN portal or allow manual submission of GST TRAN-1 form.
2. Petitioner's inability to upload TRAN-1 due to technical issues.
3. Respondents' claim of no evidence of the petitioner's attempts post-December 2017.
4. Legal precedents on similar issues from various High Courts.
5. Petitioner's continuous efforts and communication with authorities.
6. Court's decision based on precedents and technical snags in the GST system.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Petitioner's Request to Open the GSTN Portal or Allow Manual Submission:
The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to open the GSTN portal and enable the filing of the TRAN-1 form to avail input tax credit of Rs. 79,77,785/- or alternatively, to permit manual submission of the form. The petitioner, a dealer of Hyundai cars, had a closing stock of vehicles and spare parts purchased from manufacturers on payment of eligible duties as on 30.6.2017, qualifying for credit under Section 140(3) of the CGST Act, 2017.

2. Petitioner's Inability to Upload TRAN-1 Due to Technical Issues:
The petitioner attempted to file TRAN-1 on 24.12.2017, but the portal was frozen or jammed. Despite several attempts and communications with the Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax, Kurnool Division, and other authorities, the petitioner could not upload the form. The petitioner also submitted details of technical problems faced in February 2019.

3. Respondents' Claim of No Evidence Post-December 2017:
The respondents argued that there was no material evidence showing the petitioner's efforts to upload TRAN-1 after December 2017. They claimed that the petitioner did not provide any proof of attempts to claim input tax credit post-December 2017.

4. Legal Precedents on Similar Issues:
The court referred to several judgments from various High Courts, including Garuda Packaging Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner State Tax, Tara Exports v. The Union of India, Uninav Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, Bhargava Motors v. Union of India, and others. These cases directed the respondents to either open the portal for filing TRAN-1 electronically or accept the form manually due to technical glitches.

5. Petitioner's Continuous Efforts and Communication with Authorities:
The petitioner made continuous efforts to communicate with the authorities regarding the inability to upload TRAN-1. Letters and requests were exchanged in 2018 and 2019, indicating persistent attempts to resolve the issue. The court acknowledged these efforts and noted that the petitioner's difficulty in uploading the form was genuine.

6. Court's Decision Based on Precedents and Technical Snags:
The court observed that the GST system was still in a "trial and error phase" and that it would be unreasonable to expect the petitioner to comply with the requirements amidst technical failures. The court directed the respondents to either open the portal for the petitioner to file TRAN-1 electronically or accept the form manually by 30.9.2020. The petitioner's claim would then be processed in accordance with the law.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was disposed of with directions to the respondents to facilitate the filing of TRAN-1 either electronically or manually, considering the technical snags and continuous efforts made by the petitioner. The court emphasized the need for a practical approach in dealing with such issues, given the ongoing challenges with the GST system.

---