Rajdhani Sanitary Store vs. State Of Punjab And Others

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, holding that the case was covered by the High Court's previous decision in CWP-30949-2018 (Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and others) decided on 04.11.2019, and also by the interim order of the Delhi High Court. The Court directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to file or revise TRAN-1, either electronically or manually, on or before 31.12.2019. Furthermore, the petitioner was allowed, in the alternative, to claim or enter the unutilized credit in their GST-3B forms for January 2020, either electronically or manually. The reasoning was based on the concession by the respondents that the case was covered by the cited judgments and the fact that the deadline for manual filing had been extended. The ratio decidendi is that taxpayers facing technical difficulties in filing transitional credit forms should be granted relief, especially when supported by judicial precedents and departmental extensions.

Facts

The petitioner, Rajdhani Sanitary Store, Ludhiana, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order dated 04.11.2019 by the Proper Officer, Ludhiana, which denied them the carry forward of Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Rs. 17,77,602/- shown in their June 2017 returns. The petitioner, previously registered under VAT, is now registered with State GST Authorities. They claim they were unable to carry forward this unutilized Cenvat credit due to technical glitches on the GST portal, as there was no mechanical mechanism for transfer other than filing TRAN-I. The petitioner relied on a notification dated 10.09.2018, which amended rules to grant the Commissioner power to extend the time for submitting GST TRAN-I. They also cited a previous High Court decision in CWP No. 30949 of 2018.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to carry forward unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) shown in their June 2017 returns, despite failing to do so due to technical glitches on the GST portal, and whether the order denying this carry forward is liable to be quashed? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that they were unable to file TRAN-I due to technical issues with the GST portal and that the department had not provided an alternative mechanism. They relied on a notification allowing the Commissioner to extend the time for filing TRAN-I and cited the High Court's decision in CWP-30949-2018 (Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and others) as covering their case. They also referred to an interim order from the Delhi High Court in Indusind Media Communications Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. Revenue's arguments: The respondents conceded that the matter was covered by the judgment in CWP-30949-2018 and pointed out that the deadline for filing or revising TRAN-I had been extended to 31.12.2019.