Page 70 - GSTL_7th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 1

28 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 36
time-limit for filing of TRAN-1 Form. Consequently, the validity of C.B.E. & C.’s
Orders dated 21 September, 2017, 28 October, 2017 and 15 November, 2017 is-
sued under Rule 117 of CGST are challenged. The Petitioner has further sought
for a direction to the Respondents to permit the filing of TRAN-1 Form.
9. The Respondents have filed reply affidavit and have supported the
impugned enactment, and have opposed the relief sought for. As regards the
Petitioner’s case of the Petitioner making a bona fide attempt to file the GST
TRAN-1, reply affidavit has been filed by the Commissioner of Central Goods
and Services Tax and Central Board of Excise and Customs. It is stated that the
Petitioner did not specify the nature of technical difficulties, produced no proof
of having been encountered technical difficulties and the e-mail on 27 December,
2017 was sent on 17.53 hours. Since no proof was produced that the Petitioner
made any bona fide attempt and encountered technical difficulties, the Petitioner
cannot be held to be a person facing technical difficulties to give the benefit of the
extended period. The case of the Petitioner was examined based on the system
log of the portal, and it is clear that the Petitioner had encountered no technical
difficulties and no evidence of error was found on the system log.
10. The Petitioner has filed an affidavit in rejoinder stating that the Peti-
tioner made various follow up attempt by forwarding scanned copies of the let-
ter dated 23 April, 2018 to the jurisdictional officer and met the officers to resolve
the issue. The Petitioner has asserted in the rejoinder that the Petitioner encoun-
tered the technical difficulties in submitting TRAN-1 Form on 27 December, 2017
due to technical difficulties on GSTN common portal. The Petitioner contends
that once the Respondents admit there is an IT-related difficulty on the common
portal, then it cannot ask the Petitioner to produce the proof thereof.
11. The Petitioner, by an additional affidavit dated 13 March, 2019 has
sought to produce a screenshot of the browsing history from the laptop of its of-
ficer to demonstrate that bona fide attempt was made to file the TRAN-1 Form. It
is also stated that history was extracted in March, 2019, and the extracted history
may not contain full details.
12. We have heard Mr. V. Sridharan, Learned Senior Advocate along
with Mr. Prakash Shah and Mr. Sriram Sridharan, Learned Advocates for the
Petitioner and Mr. Anil Singh, the Learned Additional Solicitor General along
with Mr. Pradeep Jetly, Learned Senior Advocate and Mr. J.B. Mishra, Learned
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 and Ms. Shruti Vyas, Learned Ad-
ditional Government Pleader for Respondent No. 3.
13. Various petitions have been filed in this Court challenging the time-
limit stipulated. These Petitions are listed together and notified on board. The
challenge on the ground of ultra vires and violative of Article 14 of the Constitu-
tion of India is common in all the Petitions. During the hearing of the present
Petition, we permitted the Advocates in other Petitions to address on these legal
issues and treated the present Petition as a lead Petition. Accordingly, Mr. Bharat
Raichandani, Mr. Ishaan Patkar, Mr. Prithviraj Choudhari and Mr. Chandrakant
Thakar, the Learned Advocates have addressed us. Mr. V.A. Sonpal, the Learned
Advocate, has addressed us for the Respondents in some of the Petitions.
14. The discussion can be divided under four heads - (i) the challenge
to the impugned Rule on the ground of it being ultra vires of the parent statute;
(ii) the challenge on the ground of the Rule being unreasonable and violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution on India; (iii) the meaning of the phrase ‘technical

GST LAW TIMES  7th May 2020  70