2019 (12) TMI 1048

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....titioner has preferred this petition to seek a direction to the Respondents to issue the refund of Rs. 3,05,09,355/- to the Petitioner. The case of the Petitioner is that it is engaged in the business of sale and purchase of mobile phones. The output supplies made by the Petitioner are also in the course of exports out of India. The Petitioner states that it was registered under the provisions of Delhi Value Added Tax, 2014. When the Goods and Services Tax Act was enforced w.e.f. 01.07.2017, the Petitioner migrated to the said system of taxation. The Petitioner states that it was entitled to carry forward its electronic ledger account of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) in terms of Section 140 of the CGST Act, 2017. As on 01.07.2017, in te....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to utilize its Income tax Credit which had accumulated even prior to the enforcement of the GST regime. 3. The Petitioner has claimed the refund of the said amount of Rs. 1,37,37,029/- as also the Input Tax Credit earned on zero rated supplies made in the months of July and August, 2017 which were Rs. 50,42,831/- for the month of July 2017 and Rs. 1,17,29,495/- for the month of August 2017, aggregating to Rs. 3,05,09,355/-. 4. Mr. Harpreet Singh, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondents submits that the Petitioner uploaded the Form GST TRAN-1 only in the month of December, 2017, even though it was possible for the Petitioner to upload the same from 28.08.2017 onwards. He does not dispute the fact that the Petitioner could not u....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....edger of the assessee for the said months, which is not the case. 6. On a query by the Court, Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, learned counsel for the Petitioner points out that the ITC lying in the Petitioner's ledger account has swollen to the tune of more than Rs. 7 crores on account of lack of avenues for it to be utilized. 7. Having heard learned counsels, we are inclined to direct partial refund of the amount claimed by the Petitioner. We are of the view that the Petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of failure on the part of the Respondents in devising smooth transition to GST regime w.e.f. 01.07.2017, from the erstwhile indirect taxation structure. The Petitioner, being an exporter under the GST regime is entitled to undertake zero rat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The software systems adopted by the Respondents have to be in tune with the law, and not vice versa. The system limitations cannot be a justification to deny the relief, to which the Petitioner is legally entitled. We, therefore, reject the hyper technical objections sought to be raised by the Respondents - to the effect, that no refund can be granted, because the system did not reflect any credit lying in the ITC ledger of the Petitioner for the months of July and August, 2017. If that is so, it is entirely the Respondents making. In fact, to permit the Respondents to get away with such an argument would be putting premium on inefficiency. We therefore, reject the submission. 8. The Petitioner claims that it is entitled to a complete refu....