Page 89 - GSTL_21st May 2020_Vol 36_Part 3

2020 ] SKM STEELS LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 335
Form GST TRAN-1 as one of column not filed by petitioner - Petitioner per-
mitted to file or revise already filed incorrect statutory Form TRAN-1 either
electronically or manually within a period of 45 days subject to verification of
genuineness of claim - Also direction to Authorities not to cancel petitioner’s
GST registration with liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law
after permitting petitioner to remove technical glitch - Section 140 of Central
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. [2020 (32) G.S.T.L. 726 (P & H), 2020 (34)
G.S.T.L. J138 (S.C.) relied on]. [paras 9, 10, 11]
Petition allowed
CASES CITED
Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
— 2020 (32) G.S.T.L. 726 (P & H) — Relied on ............................................................................. [Para 7]
Union of India v. Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
— 2020 (34) G.S.T.L. J138 (S.C.) — Relied on .......................................................................... [Paras 8, 9]
[Order]. - Shri Sumit Nema, Learned Senior Advocate with Shri Piyush
Parashar, Learned Counsel for the petitioner.
2. Shri Abhishek Tugnawat, Learned Counsel for Union of India.
3. Shri Prasanna Prasad, Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 3
& 5.
4. The petitioner before this Court has filed the present petition being
aggrieved by communication dated 1-5-2019, issued by the Office of Superinten-
dent, Central Goods Services Tax and Central Excise, Indore wherein the re-
spondent No. 8 by referring to letter C. No. CGST/R-III/Div-III/Misc/2018-
19/19, dated 16-4-2019 has disallowed the legitimate and rightful unavailed
Cenvat credit on Input services, Inputs and on capital goods pertaining to the
time period preceding the introduction of GST Act, 2017 to the GST Electronic
Credit Ledger of the petitioner company’s GST Portal as transitional credit on the
ground that the case of the petitioner does not fall under the category of technical
error, thus the petitioner is not eligible for Cenvat credit on capital goods per-
taining to the time period preceding the introduction of GST Act, 2017.
5. The petitioner has further stated that the petitioner, in fact, has
committed mistake due to technical/system error and has failed in fil-
ing/uploading a declaration electronically in Form GST Tran-1, in fact, one of the
column was not filed by the petitioner.
6. The petitioner’s contention is that in similar circumstances large
number of writ petitions have been allowed by Punjab and Haryana, Delhi, Gu-
jarat and Karnataka High Courts and therefore the present writ petition also de-
serves to be allowed. He has also stated that even the SLP preferred in the matter
has been dismissed.
7. The High Court of Punbaj and Haryana, in the case of Adfret
Techonolgies (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2019) 111 Taxman.com 27 (Punjab & Har-
yana) = 2020 (32) G.S.T.L. 726 (P&H) in paragraphs 11 & 12 has held as under :-
“11. Delhi High Court in a series of cases has expressed similar view as by
Gujarat High Court. In its recent judgment in the case of Krish Authomotors
Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI and others 2019-TIOL-2153-HC-DEL-GST, Delhi High Court
has noted its various previous orders and directed as under :
11. Accordingly, a direction is issued to the Respondents to permit
GST LAW TIMES  21st May 2020  89