Tara Chand Saluja & Sons vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petitions based on the statement made by the Union of India. The Court recorded that a grievance mechanism had been put in place to deal with cases where assessees could not upload data to avail of CENVAT and VAT credit or credit on stock-in-trade due to technical glitches. The Union of India assured that in each such case, the benefit would be given. The Court granted liberty to the petitioners to challenge the final determination if they were aggrieved by it. The petitioners also reserved their right to challenge the constitutional vires. The Court explicitly stated that it had not commented on the merits of the case. The ratio decidendi is that when a statutory authority establishes a grievance redressal mechanism and assures resolution of issues arising from technical glitches, and assessees have availed this mechanism, the High Court may dispose of writ petitions with liberty to challenge the final orders, without delving into the merits.

Facts

Multiple petitioners, including Sare Realty Projects Private Limited, Dotcom Home Fashions Pvt Ltd., Tara Chand Saluja & Sons, Vee Gee Auto Components Pvt. Ltd., Ankur Oil & Refrigeration, M/s Tara Chand Saluja & Company, M/s Alliance Graphic Equipment Private Limited, M/s Batra Art Press, Benlon India Ltd., FRV Power India Pvt. Ltd., and Aman Motors, filed writ petitions before the Delhi High Court. The core issue revolved around the inability of assessees to upload data to avail of CENVAT and VAT credit or credit on stock-in-trade, allegedly due to technical glitches. The Union of India stated that a grievance mechanism had been established, and out of approximately 17,000 such cases, about 13,000 had been resolved. The authorities assured that benefits would be extended where technical issues prevented data upload, and speaking orders would be issued for rejected claims.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to avail CENVAT and VAT credit or credit on stock-in-trade despite being unable to upload data due to technical glitches, and if so, under which provisions of the GST law? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners argued that they had made representations under the established grievance mechanism and sought liberty to challenge any adverse final determination. They also reserved their right to challenge the constitutional validity of relevant provisions if necessary. Revenue's Contention: The Union of India stated that a grievance mechanism was in place to address such issues. They submitted that out of 17,000 cases, approximately 13,000 had been resolved, and benefits were being granted in cases of technical glitches. They assured that rejected claims would be accompanied by speaking orders.