Rectification of Input Tax Credit issue mandated for Tamil Nadu VAT Act dealers

The court directed the respondents to rectify the issue of Input Tax Credit not being carried forward in the Electronic Credit Ledger post-GST implementation for registered dealers under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act. The court emphasized that proof of technical glitches was not a prerequisite for relief and ordered the correction within twelve weeks. The writ petitions were allowed without costs, in line with previous judgments on similar issues.

---

---

Issues:
1. Failure to carry forward Input Tax Credit in Electronic Credit Ledger post-GST implementation.
2. Requirement for proof of technical glitches for granting relief.
3. Interpretation of Rule 117(1A) regarding extension of due date for submitting GST TRAN-1 declaration.
4. Applicability of previous court judgments on similar matters.

Analysis:

1. The petitioners, registered dealers under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, faced issues with the Input Tax Credit not being carried forward in their Electronic Credit Ledger post the implementation of the GST Regime from 01.07.2017. Despite submitting representations since January 2019, relief was not granted by the respondents, citing lack of proof of technical glitches in the uploading process.

2. The respondents contended that without evidence of technical difficulties in the portal, relief cannot be provided to the dealers. However, the court found this stance to be overly narrow and technical, referencing a previous judgment of the Madras High Court. The court highlighted the absence of a requirement for the assessee to establish technical glitches before a certain date, emphasizing the unfairness of imposing such a condition retroactively.

3. Rule 117(1A) was crucial in the court's analysis, as it extended the due date for submitting the GST TRAN-1 declaration in cases of technical difficulties. The court noted the circular dated 03.04.2018, which reiterated the need for proof of technical glitches. However, the court expressed confusion over how an assessee could have foreseen this requirement to collect evidence, especially when it was not a part of the Act before a specific date.

4. Referring to a previous decision and subsequent dismissal of the writ appeal by the department, the court directed the respondents to rectify the issue and ensure that the TNVAT credit available to the petitioners is correctly reflected in their Electronic Credit Ledgers within twelve weeks from the date of the order. Consequently, the writ petitions were allowed without any costs imposed, aligning with the principles established in previous judgments on similar matters.

---