Page 102 - GSTL_2nd July 2020 _Vol 38_Part 1

20 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 38
ing stated therein. Even in such cases, to note a few, this Court has declined to
make a differentiation and given the benefit of the doubt to the taxpayers, realiz-
ing that Respondent’s network and system, and the change, had posed multifari-
ous problems that require a reasonable approach. One such petition has been
preferred by the Sales Tax Bar Association [W.P (C) No. 9575/2017] [2019 (30)
G.S.T.L. 393 (Del.) and 2020 (33) G.S.T.L. 15 (Del.)] narrating scores of technical
problems being faced on the portal. We adopted a proactive approach in the said
matter and have endeavoured to identify root cause for failure of the network to
work seamlessly. In the said proceedings, we had also held a special hearing in-
viting the senior officials from the GSTN network as well as the officers of the
Council and the policy makers. As a result of such deliberations, some headway
has been made and recently we were informed that the respondents have re-
vamped the GST redressal mechanism so as to address the problems at a grass-
root level. The upshot of this experience is that the GSTN network, indeed, is
riddled with shortcomings and inadequacies. This is palpably evident from the
sheer number of cases being presented before us, in relation to such technical
difficulties and inadequacies. The benchmark, in our view, is that the online sys-
tem brought into force by the GSTN Ltd. should be able to perform all functions
and should have all flexibilities/options, which were available in the pre-GST
regime. The problems on the GSTN cannot be wished away, and have to be re-
solved in the right earnest. This requires sensitivity on the part of the Govern-
ment which has, unfortunately, not been exhibited in adequate measure.
16. Now, coming back to the facts of the present cases. Are the facts be-
fore us such, as to deny the petitioners the relief extended to taxpayers covered
by the category of “technical glitches or technical difficulties”? The facts of each
case enumerated above indicate that the petitioners have, either, not been vigi-
lant of the timelines, or have been victims of the chaos and confusion that was
prevailing at the time when the GST regime was introduced. As a result, Peti-
tioners may not have concrete evidence in their hand to convincingly exhibit that
they faced a technical issue on the GSTN portal while uploading the declaration
in GST TRAN-1. We were faced with a similar situation in the case of AB Pal Elec-
tricals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India in W.P. (C) 6537/2019 decided vide judgment
dated 17th December, 2019. In the said case, the assessee could not file the form
within prescribed time for the reason that the Managing Director of the company
was not keeping well, and as a result was unable to attend to the business affairs
of the company for a long time. The personnel responsible for dealing with com-
pliances required to be made by the company, constantly reported that the GST
portal was not working properly and, therefore, they were unable to access the
portal and file the requisite details. When the Managing Director recovered from
his illness, he followed up with the authorities by submitting a representation
seeking benefit of the CBIC’s orders issued from time to time-extending the last
date for submission of the TRAN-1 Form. The case was considered by the GST
Council, but it failed to redress his grievance and the matter reached before us.
We considered the situation and accepted respondents’ contention that the case
of the petitioner could not be strictly considered as one covered by the situation
of “technical glitches”. Yet, we extended the benefit of the Circular to the said
petitioner in the following terms :

GST LAW TIMES  2nd July 2020  102