Vertiv Energy Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

Facts

The Petitioner, Vertiv Energy Private Limited, sought to carry forward Cenvat Credit/Input Tax Credit of Rs.1,00,67,087/- for the period ending June 30, 2017, by filing the TRAN-1 form on December 27, 2017. However, the electronic ledger only reflected a credit of Rs.6,54,978/-, excluding Rs.94,12,109/- of closing balance CENVAT credits. The Petitioner claims the TRAN-1 form could not be filed earlier due to portal glitches. Despite contacting the GST help desk, making written submissions, filing online complaints, and submitting letters to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer and Commissioner, the Petitioner received no response. The Petitioner relies on a previous High Court order in a similar case where the respondents were directed to open the portal for filing revised TRAN-1 or accept manually filed forms.

Held

The Court held that the Respondents should be directed to either re-open the online portal to enable the Petitioner to file the TRAN-1 form electronically or to accept a manually filed TRAN-1 form. This decision is based on the Court's observation in several recent orders, including Bhargava Motors vs. Union of India & Ors. and Uninav Developers Private Limited vs. Union of India & Ors., that the GST system is still in a 'trial and error' phase. The Court reasoned that in similar circumstances, it has consistently directed the respondents to provide a mechanism for taxpayers to rectify errors in TRAN-1 filing, acknowledging the ongoing developmental stage of the GST system. The Petitioner's claims, once submitted either electronically or manually, are to be processed in accordance with the law. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to relief for the unreflected Input Tax Credit in the TRAN-1 form, considering the alleged glitches in the online portal and the Petitioner's subsequent attempts to rectify the issue, despite the statutory timelines for filing and revision having expired? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on the interpretation and application of provisions related to TRAN-1 filing and grievance redressal). Petitioner's arguments: The Petitioner contends that the discrepancy in the reflected credit is due to system errors and glitches in the online portal, preventing them from filing the TRAN-1 form correctly and on time. They argue that their persistent efforts to resolve the issue through various channels, including representations to authorities and reliance on a prior High Court order in a similar case (M/s Bluebird Pure Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.), should entitle them to relief. Respondents' arguments: The Respondents argue that the Petitioner filed the TRAN-1 form on the last extended date, December 27, 2017, and realized the error only after the deadline for filing and revision had passed. They contend that the Petitioner failed to act within the prescribed time limits and is now attempting to portray their case as one of technical glitches to gain an advantage. The Respondents' affidavit is silent on whether the Petitioner's complaint was considered by the IT Grievance Redressal Committee.