Page 52 - GSTL_23rd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 4

378 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
The procedure providing for limitation despite the fault/defect on part of the
department to make available requisite system for taking the credit, the action in
denying the credit cannot be sustained.
13. Submissions were also made that various Courts have granted the
requisite relief irrespective of non-availability of any technical log on ‘GSTN sys-
tem’. Submissions were made that the status of the departmental portal was such
that despite attempts made in this regard no log in happened and, consequently
for lack of technical log, the petitioners could not have been denied the credit, to
which they were otherwise entitled.
14. Reliance was placed on Triveni Needles Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India &
Ors. : W.P. (C) 11105/2019, decided on 17-12-2019 by Delhi High Court, The Tyre
Plaza v. Union of India & Ors. : W.P. (C) 8970/2019, decided on 20-8-2019 [2019
(30) G.S.T.L. 222 (Del.)] by Delhi High Court, Blue Bird Pure Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of
India & Ors. : (2019) 68 GSTP 340 = 2019 (29) G.S.T.L. 660 (Del.), Asiad Paints Lim-
ited & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. : W.P. No. 33290/2019, decided on 19-11-2019
[2020 (34) G.S.T.L. 50 (Kar.)] by Karnataka High Court, Jay Bee Industries v. Union
of India & Ors. : CWP No. 2169/2018, decided on 16-11-2019 [2020 (32) G.S.T.L.
719 (H.P.)] by Himachal Pradesh High Court and Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.
Union of India & Ors. : CWP No. 30949/2018, decided on 4-11-2019 [2020 (32)
G.S.T.L. 726 (P&H)] by Punjab & Haryana High Court.
15. After the order was reserved, counsel for the petitioners has submit-
ted a note indicating that the special leave petition against the order in the case of
Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has been rejected by Hon’ble Supreme Court
on 28-2-2020. It was prayed that the writ petitions be allowed and the communi-
cations issued requiring the petitioners to reverse the credit be quashed and set
aside.
16. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents made submissions
that the writ petitions filed by the petitioners have no substance. Submissions
were made that procedure have been provided in law for taking the benefit of
available credit by way of provisions of Section 140 of the CGST Act and Rule
117 of the CGST Rules. However, a limitation in this regard has been provided
and the petitioners were, therefore, required to follow the limitation in claiming
the credit. However, within the limitation prescribed the needful was not done
and, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief.
17. Further submissions were made that once the respondents after go-
ing through the log came to the conclusion that there was no evidence of error or
submission/filing of Form GST Tran-1 by the petitioners, the petitioners on ac-
count of alleged vested right cannot seek the relaxation in the limitation and reo-
pening of the portal for the purpose.
18. Further submissions were made that the allegations made about the
technical glitches and that the assessees were generally denied the credit on ac-
count of such glitches is baseless as huge number of Form GST Tran-1 were filed
and credit was given.
19. Submissions were made that no vested right has been taken away,
only a time limit has been fixed and, therefore, the various pleas raised in this
regard cannot be sustained.
20. Reliance was placed on judgment in Osram Surya (P) Ltd. v. Commr.
Central Excise, Indore : (2002) 9 SCC 20 = 2002 (142) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.), JCB India Ltd. v.
Union of India : Case No. 3142/2017, decided on 20-3-2018 by Bombay High Court
GST LAW TIMES  23rd April 2020  172