TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1592
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ates the transitional arrangements for the claim of Input Tax Credit, and Sub Section (1) of Section 140 provides that, a registered person, other than a person opting to pay tax under section 10, shall be entitled to take, in his electronic credit ledger, the amount of CENVAT credit of eligible duties carried forward in the return relating to the period ending with the day immediately preceding the appointed day, furnished by him in such manner as may be prescribed. 2. According to the petitioner, as the petitioner was having Input Tax Credit in respect of the transactions pertaining to the period referred to above, which were during pre-GST period, they were entitled to carry forward the said credit to the GST regime by virtue of Sub Section (1) of Section 140 of the CGST Act. The initial period fixed for claiming the benefit of carry forward as contemplated under the transitional provisions in Section 140 was up to 27.12.2017. However, later, as per the direction issued by the Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India v. M/s. Filco Trade Centre Private Limited [S.L.P.(C) No. 32709 and 32710 of 2018], the time limit was extended up to 30.11.2022 for all the taxpayers. The pet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n submitted by the respondent in response to the averments contained in the writ petition. In paragraph 3 of the said statement, it is averred as follows: "In this case the taxpayer had logged in to GST Portal on 30-11- 2022 at 19:56 pm from IP Address: 103.161.55.236 and saved data in TRAN-1 Form in various table except table 7(b), which needs to be filled in accordance with Section 140(5) of CGST Act 2017. For entering details in table 7(b) the tax payer used offline tool and has got a validation error "date on which entered in the recipient's books of account should be after 01-07-2017". This is a valid error in terms of Section 140(5) of CGST Act, 2017 as the tax payer was supposed to enter the date which should be after 01st July 2017 in the column "date on which entered in the recipient's books of account". Hence, corrective measure would have been to enter valid dates then click on the validate button and proceed with the process mentioned above for filing of TRAN-1 Form. Since, the tax payer did not rectify the aforesaid valid error, he was not able to upload table 7(b) data on GST portal. Therefore, no record of table 7(b) are present in the system, as alleged by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reasons for not accepting Ext.P7 TRAN-1 form submitted by the petitioner, was not attributable to the portal or to the respondents. As rightly pointed out by the learned standing counsel for the respondents, the same was a mistake on the part of the petitioner, in entering the necessary details in a wrong column. Therefore, Ext.P8 error occurred and the application was rejected. However, the question that arises here is whether, merely because of an error on the part of the petitioner, the benefits which the petitioner was otherwise entitled to, could be denied. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the decision rendered by this Court in M/S.G & C Infra Innovations v. Union of India [ WP (C) No. 14096 of 2019], wherein, an identical situation arose, with a subtle variation that the petitioner had uploaded the GST TRAN-1 Form on 01.09.2017, when the prescribed cut-off date for filing the same was 27.12.2017. In the said decision, permission was granted to the petitioner therein. The said decision rendered by the learned Single Bench was taken in appeal, by the Department in Union of India v. M/S.G & C Infra Innovations [W.A. NO.608 of 2022] and it was disposed of, in tune ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fficulties to the Department in entertaining the claim of the petitioner and granting the benefits as envisaged under Section 140, at this point of time, since more that two and half years have elapsed, after the last date fixed by the Honourable Supreme Court. The learned standing counsel also highlighted the difficulties in accepting such application in the web portal due to technical reasons. 11. However, this issue was also taken note of by the Honourable Supreme Court, in the decision in Aberdare Technologies Private Limited & Ors (supra), and it was observed that, the software limitations itself, cannot be a justification to deny such reliefs, as the software is meant to ease compliance and can be configured. In the light of the aforesaid observations, I am of the view that, those technical difficulties by itself cannot be a reason to reject the contentions raised by the petitioner. 12. While considering this issue, it is also to be noted that, this is not a case in which, any evasion of tax has occurred. The petitioner was making an attempt to claim a benefit which it was entitled to, as per the statute. In a decision rendered by the Delhi High Court A.B. Pal Electrica....