Page 12 - GSTL_7th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 1

x GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 36
Input Tax Credit (ITC) (Contd.)
goods offered by way of gift - Section 17(5)(h) of Central Goods and
Services Tax Act, 2017 — In Re : Moksh Agarbatti Co. (A.A.R. - GST - Guj.) ....... 135
— Transitional credit - Petitioner is entitled to claim credit of Cenvat as well
as Service Tax as on 30th June, 2017 as per the provisions under Section
140(1) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 117 of
Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - Respondent No. 4, who is
the jurisdictional officer, directed to verify the claim of Cenvat credit and
Service Tax of the petitioner so as to enable the petitioner to carry
forward by filing/uploading Form GST TRAN­1 on GST portal on or
before 31-3-2020 — Siddhi Developers v. Union of India (Guj.) .............. 19
— Transitional provisions - Rule 117 of Central Goods and Services Tax
Rules, 2017 - Vires of - Availment of input tax credit under Section 140(1)
of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is a concession attached with
conditions of its exercise within the time-limit and not an accrued right -
Input tax credit is not without time-limit under the GST regime, also -
Prescribing a time-limit under the impugned Rule is not contrary to the
object of the Act - Time-limit stipulated in Rule 117 ibid within rule-
making power conferred in Section 164(2) ibid - Thus, limit under Rule
117(1) ibid is not ultra vires of the Act — NELCO Ltd. v. Union of India (Bom.) .... 24
— Transitional provisions - Rule 117 of Central Goods and Services Tax
Rules, 2017 - Constitutional validity under Article 14 of Constitution of
India - Object and purpose sought to be achieved is not permitting the
existing arrangement to continue endlessly - Transitional arrangements
made for the new regime to come into force - Section 140 of Central
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 has a clear nexus to the object sought to
be achieved - In economic matters of such vast scale, broader
considerations of the State exchequer, cannot be kept out of purview
while interpreting a statutory provision - Time-limit for availing of input
tax credit in the transitionary provisions being rooted in the larger public
interest of having certainty in allocation and planning, time-limit under
Rule 117 ibid not irrelevant - A provision not becomes unreasonable
because it mandates electronic compliance - Issuing a writ would mean
overriding this time-limit - Equity jurisdiction ought not to be exercised -
Article 226 of Constitution of India — NELCO Ltd. v. Union of India (Bom.) ..... 24
— under GST - Electronic filing of GST TRAN-1 - Technical difficulties -
Ambit of - Technical difficulties relating to the Common Portal and not
individual problems and local issues such as non-availability of internet
connectivity, power failure or a problem of a specific system - GST
Council being not a body to resolve technical issues, an IT Grievance
Redressal Mechanism developed by GST Council - Difficulties on
common portal asserted from system log of the common portal itself, a
criteria rightly evolved by IT Grievance Redressal Mechanism - System
logs being generated automatically, no question of personal mala fides
while ascertaining the system logs arises - Insisting on system log as
proof of technical difficulties, thus, is not arbitrary - System log on the
common portal not supports the case of Petitioner as to existence of
technical difficulties - No direction thus can be issued to the Respondents
now to treat the case of the Petitioner as falling within the ambit of Rule
117(1A) of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 — NELCO Ltd. v.
Union of India (Bom.) .................................. 24

GST LAW TIMES  7th May 2020  12