Writ jurisdiction permits correction of bona fide TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 errors where statutory remedy cannot effectively redress transitional credit loss.

A revised TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 filing that omitted earlier transitional credit figures due to a bona fide mistake could be corrected through writ jurisdiction where the CGST appellate remedy was ineffective for that purpose. The Court treated the dispute as one involving rectification of an erroneous revised return, not a routine assessment challenge, and held that expiry of the statutory appeal period did not bar relief under Article 226. It also accepted that denial of correction could lead to double taxation. The impugned assessment and demand were quashed, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after permitting rectification and hearing the taxpayer.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability and expiry of the statutory appellate remedy under the CGST Act; (ii) whether the petitioner was entitled to correction of the revised TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms and consequential reconsideration of the denial of transitional credit.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability and expiry of the statutory appellate remedy under the CGST Act

Analysis: The challenge was not a routine grievance against an assessment, but one seeking correction of a bona fide mistake in the revised TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms. The relief sought was treated as one beyond the effective powers of the statutory authorities under the CGST framework and therefore within the writ jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In these circumstances, non-availment of the appellate remedy within limitation was held not to bar the writ petition.

Conclusion: The writ petition was held to be maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether the petitioner was entitled to correction of the revised TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms and consequential reconsideration of the denial of transitional credit

Analysis: The record showed that the original transitional credit claim had been verified and a substantial part was found eligible. The revised filings were found to have omitted the figures in the earlier forms, and the omission was accepted as a bona fide mistake. The denial of any opportunity to correct the revised forms was considered likely to result in double taxation, and a liberal approach was adopted where no tax evasion was alleged. Accordingly, the impugned order and demand were set aside, and the matter was directed to be reconsidered after permitting rectification and after giving an opportunity of hearing and document production.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to rectification of the revised TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms and to fresh consideration of the transitional credit claim.

Final Conclusion: The impugned assessment and demand were quashed, the petitioner was allowed to rectify the revised transitional forms, and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a revised transitional return omits earlier claimed credit due to a bona fide mistake and the statutory remedy is ineffective for correction, writ jurisdiction may be exercised to permit rectification and require fresh consideration of the claim.

---