TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 1317
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....returns until 30.06.2017 and Ext.P1, P1(a) closing stock inventory in accordance with law. While on 22/11/2017, petitioner was trying to file Tran-1 under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act and Rules 2017, for carry forward of input tax credit of Rs. 9,15,198.29/-, happens to be submitted as 'zero' claim of input tax credit under ARN No.AA3212170002613 in GSTIN Portal maintained by the 4th respondent, evidenced by Ext.P2. In accordance with Ext.P3 notification issued by the 2nd respondent, petitioner filed Ext.P4 request before the 1st respondent, marking copy of the same to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioner also submitted Ext.P5 request before the Dy. Commissioner (Tech.), office of the Commis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion issued by the 2nd respondent. For this reason alone, Ext.P8 communication issued by the 1st respondent is liable to be quashed and proper direction warranting to be issued to the 1st respondent from this Court. b) On similar set of fact, this Court passed Ext.P5(a) judgment and the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, passed Ext.P6 judgment for facilitating submission of Tran-1 and for correction of incorrect Tran-1 submitted by traders for carry forward of input tax credited as a transitional provision to the enactment of new Act, the Goods and Services Tax Act and Rules in India as a common law. It is pertinent to note that only those dealers who wants carry forward of input tax credit available, needs to file Tran-1. Fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, or order directing the respondents to provide the petitioner a facility to re-file/correct incorrect filing of FORMGST TRAN-1 by re-opening the online portal to the petitioner, within the time limit; 3. to call the records from the 1st respondent, leading to issuance of Ext.P8 communication and to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate. 4. Heard Sri. Tomson T. Emmanuel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.P.R. Sreejith, learned standing counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes, Government of India, appearing for respondents 1 and 3 to 6, Sri. P. Vijayakumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ired details or revise the same was on account of a system error that was occasioned by the respondents, cannot be a reason for denying him the substantive benefit of carrying forward the credit earned by him under the erstwhile regime. I also take note of the decision of the Delhi High Court in Blue Bird Pure Pvt. Ltd,. Vs. Union of India and Others [(2019) 68 GSTR 340 (Delhi)], and the decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court dated 16.11.2019 in CWP No. 2169 of 2018 (Jay Bee Industries Vs. Union of India and others), which take the view that accrued tax credits cannot be denied or varied on account of procedural defects cited by the respondents. In particular, it was noticed in those judgment that the GST system was still in a trial an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....matter of fact, the petitioner did attempt to log into the system, as can be seen from Ext.P2 but had made some errors in entering the correct figure which lead to the present impasse. Therefore, cases of this nature are also covered by judgments of various other high Courts like the Delhi High Court, in the case in Blue Bird Pure Pvt. Ltd,. Vs. Union of India and Others [(2019) 68 GSTR 340 (Delhi)], as well as the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court dated 16.11.2019 in CWP No. 2169 of 2018 (Jay Bee Industries Vs. Union of India and others) etc, wherein, the said High Courts have taken the view that the accrued tax credits cannot be denied or varied on account of procedural defects cited by the respondents. In this regard, the petit....