Page 50 - GSTL_23rd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 4

376 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
problem on GSTN common portal - However, ITGRC meeting found no evi-
dences of error or submission/filing of Form GST Tran-1 by petitioners - Cred-
it denied - Section 140(1) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rule
117 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. [paras 29, 31]
Petitions dismissed
CASES CITED
Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
— 2020 (32) G.S.T.L. 726 (P & H) — Referred .........................................................[Paras 14, 15, 34, 35]
ALD Automotive Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer
— 2018 (364) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) — Referred ...................................................................................... [Para 20]
Asiad Paints Limited v. Union of India
— 2020 (34) G.S.T.L. 50 (Kar.) — Distinguished ........................................................ [Paras 14, 34, 35]
Blue Bird Pure Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
— 2019 (29) G.S.T.L. 660 (Del.) — Distinguished ...................................................... [Paras 14, 34, 35]
Jay Bee Industries v. Union of India
— 2020 (32) G.S.T.L. 719 (H.P.) — Distinguished ..................................................... [Paras 14, 34, 35]
JCB India Limited v. Union of India — 2018 (15) G.S.T.L. 145 (Bom.) — Referred ........................ [Para 20]
Jodhpur Truck Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
— 2020 (32) G.S.T.L. 172 (Raj.) — Relied on ................................................. [Paras 6, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27]
Osram Surya Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2002 (142) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.) — Relied on ................ [Paras 20, 33]
Triveni Needles Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — W.P.(C) No. 11105 of 2019, decided on 17-12-2019
by Delhi High Court — Distinguished ....................................................................... [Paras 14, 34, 35]
Tyre Plaza v. Union of India — 2019 (30) G.S.T.L. 222 (Del.) — Distinguished .............. [Paras 14, 34, 35]
Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. — Order dated 28-2-2020 of Supreme Court — Referred ............. [Para 15]
Willowood Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — 2018 (19) G.S.T.L. 228 (Guj.) — Referred .. [Para 20]
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Sharad Kothari and Prateek Gattani, for the
Petitioner.
Shri Rajvendra Saraswat, for the Respondent.
[Judgment]. - These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners ag-
grieved by non-filing of Form GST Tran-1 at common portal allegedly because of
various system error/technical glitches at the portal throughout the period dur-
ing which the Form was available, which resulted in denial of transactional cred-
it of central excise paid on goods amounting to Rs. 23,27,063/- in S.B.C.W.P. No.
440/2020 and Rs. 85,41,755/- in S.B.C.W.P. No. 266/2020 as on the appointed
date i.e. 1-7-2017 in terms of Section 140 of the Central Goods and Service Tax
Act, 2017 (‘CGST Act’).
2. It is, inter alia, indicated in the writ petitions that petitioners had pur-
chased goods prior to the appointed date i.e. 1-7-2017, which were held in stock
on the appointed date. The provisions of Chapter-XX of the CGST Act provided
for transitional provisions for transition of credit from erstwhile indirect tax re-
gime to GST regime, which inter alia provided that a registered person who was
not liable to be registered under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944
(‘the Act of 1944’) is entitled to take credit of eligible duties in respect of input
held in stock on the appointed day subject to fulfilment of the conditions set out
therein. It is submitted that the provision of Section 140 of the CGST Act is a
complete Code in itself and the same does not provide for eligibility subject to
any further conditions.
3. Rule 117 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (‘CGST
Rules’) was framed for allowing carry forward of the eligible duties available

GST LAW TIMES  23rd April 2020  170