Jegannathan Engineering Works vs. CGST Nodal Officer For It Grievance Redressal

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to extend the date for submitting the declaration electronically in FORM GST TRAN-1, specifically for the petitioner. The Court referenced a previous decision in W.P.(MD) No. 21320 of 2019 (Angamuthu Amuthavel Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, Kulithalai and others) which also addressed technical glitches in uploading returns. The reasoning was that the petitioner had approached the respondents in time, but due to technical issues, could not complete the filing. The Court found the petitioner's case to be covered by the precedent. The operative directions included the petitioner visiting the CGST Nodal Officer for IT Grievance Redressal on March 16, 2020, submitting a written representation by March 20, 2020, and the first respondent complying with the order to enable the petitioner to file their returns by March 31, 2020. No costs were awarded.

Facts

The petitioner, Jaganathan Engineering Works, sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to either reopen the online portal for filing a rectified TRAN-I form or accept a manually filed TRAN-1 form with corrections by March 31, 2020. The petitioner, registered under the CGST Act, intended to claim transitional credit of Rs. 26,27,955/-. The petitioner claimed that although the government provided a window to file TRAN-I until March 31, 2019, extended to December 31, 2019, the GST portal only opened on October 15, 2019, preventing them from revising their form. This led to the filing of the present writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction to reopen the online portal for filing a rectified TRAN-I form or to accept a manually filed TRAN-1 form with corrections, considering the alleged technical glitches and limited window for filing. The petitioner argued that technical glitches in the GST portal prevented them from filing the revised TRAN-I form within the extended deadline. They relied on the fact that the portal was only accessible from October 15, 2019, which was insufficient time to rectify and file. The petitioner sought relief similar to that granted in previous cases involving technical issues with the portal. The respondents did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. However, the court's decision implies that the respondents' stance was likely that the deadlines had passed and no further extension or manual filing should be permitted.