https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783325 HC held that the petitioner, an Input Service Distributor, could not be denied transitional CENVAT credit as ITC solely due to a technical glitch on the GST portal preventing timely filing of TRAN-01 and consequent distribution under Rule 39(1)(a) CGST Rules. Interpreting Section 140(7) CGST Act, the Court noted absence of a prescribed outer timeline for distribution of such pre-GST credits and ruled that software/system limitations cannot override statutory entitlements. HC directed the tax authorities to reflect ITC of Rs. 99,18,972 in the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger within three months, with GSTN's cooperation if necessary, and granted the petitioner one month thereafter to distribute the credit to its sub-offices. Petition disposed. en-us Thu, 04 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Dec 2025 08:28:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783325 HC held that the petitioner, an Input Service Distributor, could not be denied transitional CENVAT credit as ITC solely due to a technical glitch on the GST portal preventing timely filing of TRAN-01 and consequent distribution under Rule 39(1)(a) CGST Rules. Interpreting Section 140(7) CGST Act, the Court noted absence of a prescribed outer timeline for distribution of such pre-GST credits and ruled that software/system limitations cannot override statutory entitlements. HC directed the tax authorities to reflect ITC of Rs. 99,18,972 in the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger within three months, with GSTN's cooperation if necessary, and granted the petitioner one month thereafter to distribute the credit to its sub-offices. Petition disposed. Case-Laws GST Thu, 04 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783325