Page 96 - GSTL_7th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 1

54 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 36
A uniform and technically capable criteria to determine technical difficulties on
the portal of system logs has been evolved. There is no allegation, nor there is
any question of any personal mala fides while ascertaining the system logs. The
system logs are generated automatically and based on such system logs categori-
zation has been made.
73. The input tax credit in the transitional provision is a concession to
be utilised in a time-bound manner, and further extension is given if the GST
Council finds that there was a technical difficulty at its end. If there is no tech-
nical difficulty on the common portal for the registered user, this additional con-
cession is not extended. Whether to grant further concession as Rule 117(1A) will
be determined from examination the system logs from the portal. Exercise of eq-
uity jurisdiction in some cases and not in other cases would cause an anomalous
situation, particularly when a time-limit has been placed in a taxing statute for
achieving certainty and finality.
74. Last, turning now to the question of relief to the present Petitioner.
A reply affidavit has been filed wherein it is stated that no details of technical
difficulties were stated in the representations emailed nor any proof was provid-
ed. It is stated that the Petitioner sent an email on 27 December, 2017 at 17.53
which was the final date for filing TRAN-1 Form. It is stated that the case of the
Petitioner was discussed by the IT Redressal Cell in its meeting on 27 August,
2018 and as per the GST System log, no evidence was available. The decision was
communicated to the Petitioner on 10 July, 2018. The Petitioner has filed a rejoin-
der, and it is reiterated that the Petitioner has now produced a screen-shot of the
browsing history extracted from the laptop of one of it’s employee which reveals
that the portal was accessed on 27 December, 2017. It is stated that the history
was extracted in March, 2019 and there is a possibility that it may not contain full
details and also there may not be a complete list of browsing history.
75. The Petitioner submits that based on the browsing history now
produced by way of rejoinder, the fact that the Petitioner attempted and encoun-
tered technical difficulties be upheld. This submission cannot be accepted. We
have held that the phrase technical difficulty in Rule 117(1A) of the Rules is in
relation to the common portal and the criteria for determining the error on the
common portal is a system log on the common portal. The system log is an un-
questionable criterion for ascertaining the activity on the portal. An adjudication
based on contemporaneous material besides the system log will make ascertain-
ment of technical difficulties unguided. The existence of technical difficulties as
seen from the system logs at the common portal is a cogent proof. In the absence
thereof, the adjudication will be in the realm of subjectively. The system log on
the common portal does not support the case of the Petitioner. This has been
communicated to the Petitioner. No direction thus can be issued to the Respond-
ents now to treat the case of the Petitioner as falling within the ambit of Rule
117(1A).
76. To conclude, the time-limit stipulated under Rule 117 of the Rules is
not ultra vires of the Act. This Rule is traceable to the power conferred under Sec-
tion 164(2) of the Act. The time-limit stipulated in Rule 117 is in consonance with
the transitional nature of the enactment, and it is neither arbitrary nor unreason-
able. Availment of input tax credit under Section 140(1) is a concession attached
with conditions of its exercise within the time-limit. The IT Grievance Redressal
Cell is set up by the GST Council to examine the existence of technical difficulties

GST LAW TIMES  7th May 2020  96