A. B. Print Pack vs. The Principal Chief Commissioner & Anr.

Held

The Court directed the respondent (Principal Chief Commissioner and other revenue authorities) to consider the petitioner's grievances concerning the input tax credit claims. The authorities are to examine these grievances in light of the representations made by the petitioner on the GST portal and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the extent circulars. The Court disposed of the writ petition with these directions, implying that the merits of the claims were to be decided by the respondent authorities. No specific finding was recorded on the technical glitches or the inadvertent credit, but the direction to consider the grievances suggests a procedural path for resolution. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided but rather remanded the matter for consideration by the appropriate authority.

Facts

The petitioner, A. B. PRINT PACK, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the non-consideration of input tax credit. The petitioner claimed that input tax credit related to capital goods, amounting to ₹12,70,097, was inadvertently permitted in the TRANS I Form filed on December 27, 2017. Furthermore, the petitioner sought a direction to consider input tax credit of ₹15,82,821 on the stock of goods, which could not be claimed under TRANS II due to alleged technical glitches on the GST portal. The petitioner contended that representations and grievance redressal requests were made contemporaneously on the portal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the input tax credit on capital goods, inadvertently permitted in the TRANS I Form filed on December 27, 2017, should be considered, turning on the interpretation of transitional provisions for GST. 2. Whether the input tax credit on the stock of goods, which could not be claimed under TRANS II due to alleged technical glitches on the GST portal, should be considered, particularly in light of the petitioner's contemporaneous representations. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that their grievances regarding input credit under TRANS I and input tax credit on stock of goods, which could not be claimed due to errors (negligence of the accountant and alleged technical glitches), should be examined in light of their representations made on the portal. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue.