M/S Omax Autos LTD vs. State Of Haryana And Others

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. It directed Respondent No. 6 to forward the petitioner's representations, dated May 21, 2018, August 3, 2018, and August 16, 2018, to the concerned IT Redressal Committee within fifteen days, after verification by the GSTN. The IT Redressal Committee was then directed to decide these representations in accordance with Clause 5.4 of the Circular dated April 3, 2018. This decision was to be made within four weeks from the date of receipt of the representations, by passing a speaking order and affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner was granted the right to lead any evidence to substantiate its claim before the concerned authority. The Court did not decide the substantive claim for transitional credit but directed the procedural mechanism for its redressal.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Omax Autos Ltd., filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents to allow its claim for eligible transitional credit of ` 9.83 crores or to decide its representations. The petitioner, registered under GST in Haryana, had filed Form TRAN-1 on August 25, 2017, claiming ` 8.15 crores based on previous excise and VAT returns. This credit was not reflected in its electronic credit ledger. The petitioner subsequently revised Form TRAN-1 on December 27, 2017, to include an additional ` 1.68 crores for input services received prior to July 1, 2017. Despite multiple representations to the authorities regarding the non-reflection of Cenvat credit and GSTN portal issues, no resolution was provided. The petitioner relied on a CBIC circular dated April 3, 2018, establishing an IT Grievance Redressal Mechanism and a previous High Court order in a similar case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the allowance of its claim for eligible transitional credit amounting to ` 9.83 crores, or for a decision on its pending representations, in light of the alleged technical glitches on the GST portal that prevented the credit from being reflected. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that it had made multiple representations to the respondent authorities regarding the non-reflection of its eligible transitional credit due to technical issues with the GST portal. It argued that these issues prevented it from claiming the Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the GST Act. The petitioner relied on the IT Grievance Redressal Mechanism established by the CBIC vide Circular dated April 3, 2018, and a previous order of this Court in CWP-4180-2018, which directed the decision of similar representations. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue or state respondents.