Page 94 - GSTL_7th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 1

52 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 36
65. Details of the Grievance Redressal Mechanism is on record. An out-
line is: If the taxpayers encounter a technical difficulty regarding TRAN-1 Form,
he has to apply to the Nodal officers. The technical difficulty 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 sys-
tem. The application should show bona fide attempts by the taxpayer to comply
with the due process of law. The application is forwarded to GSTN, who would
on receipt of the application, after identifying the issue, forward the same to the
IT Grievance Redressal Committee for decision. The cases are examined and are
categorized broadly reason-wise and then further grouped into two major cate-
gories as Category ‘A’ and Category ‘B”. Category ‘A’ includes cases in which
the taxpayer could not file TRAN-1 Form because of technical difficulties, where-
as Category ‘B’ includes cases where detailed analysis at GSTN reveals that there
were no technical issues in filing TRAN-1 Form as per the system logs. Category
‘B’ is further sub-divided into eleven categories based on the claims of taxpayers
and cases forwarded by Nodal Officer. System logs regarding the filing of
TRAN-1 Form are examined to ascertain the evidence of error of submis-
sion/filing of TRAN-1 Form before the due date. In short, if, as per GST system
log, there is no evidence of submission/filing of TRAN-1 Form on the common
portal, it has to be concluded that the taxpayer did not try for saving/submitting
or filing TRAN-1 Form before the due date and, not entitled to the benefit of the
extended period under Rule 117(1A).
66. The petitioner contends that the ambit of phrase ‘technical difficul-
ties’ will have to be defined by the Court and it cannot be left to the IT Grievance
Cell of the GST Council to define the same. Further, an ad hoc criterion has been
devised classifying the registered persons into arbitrary groups and for some
recommendation is made, and for some, it is rejected. The Petitioner contends
that is that the GST Council cannot delegate this power to the IT Grievance Re-
dressal Committee. This submission cannot be accepted. The GST Council is not
a body to resolve technical issues. Therefore, an IT Grievance Redressal Mecha-
nism was developed by the GST Council. This Committee involved the CEO of
the GST, Network Director General of Systems, CBSC and the Nominee from
State as technical persons. Based on the report of this Technical Committee, a
further recommendation would be made. Therefore, there is no merit in the con-
tention that the power could not have been delegated to the IT Grievance Re-
dressal Committee.
67. Petitioner then contends that the phrase ‘technical difficulty’ in Rule
117(1A) has to be broadly construed. It is not possible to do so. Rule 117(1A) re-
fers to technical difficulties in online submission of TRAN-1 Form on the com-
mon portal. These technical difficulties are not the ones faced in general but on
the common portal of the GST. The meaning of the phrase ‘technical difficulty’ is,
thus clear that is the technical difficulties are those which arise at the common
portal of GST.
68. The IT Grievance Redressal Cell has taken the system log on the
common portal as evidence of attempts made. There is no merit in the criticism
of the Petitioner in taking system logs as a basis for determining technical diffi-
culties. Since Rule 117(1A) refers only to the technical difficulties on the common
portal, the record on the common portal would be a material piece of evidence.

GST LAW TIMES  7th May 2020  94