TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 1217
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enged the action of the Respondents as being violative of Articles 14, 265 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. 3. This Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following substantive relief:- "(i) That it is just, equitable and in the interest of justice that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction ordering and directing the Respondents jointly/ collectively and their sub-ordinate officers to forthwith to take such actions as may be necessary for transitioning the credit of Rs. 17,07,673/- as filed by the Petitioner in FORM GST TRAN -1 on 27.12.2019 into the Petitioner's electronic credit ledger in FORM GST PMT- 2 including by way of permitting the Petitioner to resubmit Form GST TRAN-1 electronically or manually, or in the alternative by permitting the Petitioner to avail the credit of Rs. 17,07,673/- in FORM GSTR 3B, and, accept the same, and, pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case." 4. It is submitted that the Petitioner is a Non-B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the said failure is due to the technical glitches in the Respondents GSTN portal as GSTN has been beset with technical glitches which has defeated the Petitioner's substantive right to transition tax credit for no fault of the Petitioner. 7. Petitioner submits that to resolve this issue, it raised query/ entered into correspondence with GST Help Desk, CEO GSTN, GSTN as well as correspondence with GST Maharashtra Commissionerate, Mumbai. Petitioner has also set out the sequence of relevant dates and events from the filing of the TRAN -1 form and the various correspondence exchanged between the Petitioner and the Respondents/ Help Desk along with Screen Shots as a follow up for resolution of its grievance. 8. Petitioner further submits that it had faced similar grievances in the States of Delhi and Haryana at the time of filing of TRAN-1 forms. However, qua the Petitioner, the portal was re-opened for filing Form of GSTN TRAN-1 by the authority in those States upon grievances raised by the Petitioner. Petitioner submits that the technical glitches faced by the Petitioner in the State of Maharashtra are identical to what was faced in Delhi and Haryana and thus when ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the application was timely forwarded to MAHAVIKAS Branch of the Maharashtra GST Department through proper channel and also to the GSTN. They have also reiterated that the Petitioner's application was put up before the 1st meeting of ITGRC but the same was not approved. Learned Counsel for the Respondents has also drawn our attention to the remarks of the Respondents in Ex. D to the affidavit in reply of Respondent Nos.2 and 5 at page 100 where in the remarks column - there is a following observation:- "As per dealers contention he had successfully filed TRAN -1 on 27.12.2017, but the credit claimed in the filed TRAN -1 is not reflected in his electronic ledger. In this case dealer has not submitted any evidence which proves that he had successfully filed TRAN-1 application." 14. In the rejoinder, the Petitioner has reiterated its submission made in the Petition. 15. We have heard learned Counsel Shri Karthik Sundaram, for the Petitioner, Shri Pradeep S. Jetly, learned Sr. Counsel for Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 and learned Counsel Shri Dushyant Kumar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 & 5. We have also perused the papers and proceedings in this Petition. 16. Learned Counse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case of M/s. Adfert Technologies (supra), it is submitted that the said decision holds no binding precedence. 18. At the outset, we must say that it is not disputed that Petitioner's Form GST TRAN-1 filing on 27th December, 2017 was successful. The only issue is that the credit of Rs. 17,07,673/- has not been transitioned in the Petitioner's electronic credit ledger despite the successful filing. It is also not in dispute that after filing TRAN-1, which filing was successful, the credit of Rs. 17,07,673/- is not appearing in the Petitioner's electronic credit ledger/ register and despite making grievance to the authorities, as discussed earlier, Petitioner did not receive any positive response. We are unable to comprehend that even though, admittedly, the filing was successful, the credit is not being reflected in the Petitioner's ledger and merely on the ground that no technical error has been found on the GSTN, the grievance of the Petitioner has not been addressed. 19. With respect to Shri Jetly's reliance on the decision in the case of NELCO (supra), we are of the view that the facts of this case and NELCO (supra) are clearly distinguishable. NELCO was a case where the P....