Page 103 - GSTL_2nd July 2020 _Vol 38_Part 1

2020 ] BRAND EQUITY TREATIES LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 21
“4. Petitioner relies upon several decisions of this Court including M/s.
Blue Bird Pure Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine 9250 =
2019 (29) G.S.T.L. 666 (Del.) and Sare Realty Projects Private Limited v. Union
of India, W.P. (C) No. 1300/2018, decided on 1-8-2018 [2018 (16) G.S.T.L. 177
(Del.)] to urge that the Court has granted reliefs to several other parties
who were in similar situation.
5. We have considered the submissions of the parties. The nature of reliefs
sought in the present petition and the facts disclosed herein is fully covered
by the decision of this Court in M/s. Blue Bird Pure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) decided
on 22-7-2019, wherein, following the decisions of this Court in Bhargava Mo-
tors v. Union of India, decision dated 13th May, 2019 in WP (C) 1280/2018
and Kusum Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2019-TIOL-1509-HC-DEL-
GST, the Court had directed the respondents to either open the online por-
tal or to enable the petitioner to file the rectified TRAN-1 electronically or
accept the same manually. The said decision has also been followed by this
Court in M/s. Aadinath Industries &Anr. v. Union of India, W.P. (C)
9775/2019, decided on 20-9-2019; Lease Plan India Private Limited v. Govern-
ment of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors., W.P. (C) 3309/2019, de-
cided on 13-9-2019; Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Through its Branch Commer-
cial Manager v. Union of India, W.P. (C) 8075/2019, decided on 15-10-2019.
The decision of this Court in Krish Automotors Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI - 2019-T1OL-
2153-HC-DEL-GST has also been followed by the Punjab & Haryana High
Court in Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v Union of India in CWP No.
30949/2018 (O&M) decided on 4-11-2019. The relevant paragraphs of M/s.
Blue Bird (supra) read as under :
“10. Having carefully examined those decisions, the Court is una-
ble to find any distinguishing feature that should deny the Petition-
er a relief similar to the one granted in those cases. In those cases al-
so, there was some error committed by the Petitioners which they
were unable to rectify in the TRAN-1 Form and as a result of which,
they could not file the returns in TRAN-2 Form and avail of the
credit which they were entitled to. In both the said decisions, the
Court noticed that GST system is still in the ‘trial and error phase’
insofar as its implementation is concerned. It was observed in Bhar-
gava Motors (supra) as under :
“10. The GST System is still in a ‘trial and error phase ’ as far as its
implementation is concerned. Ever since the date the GSTN became
operational, this Court has been approached by dealers facing genu-
ine difficulties in filing returns, claiming input tax credit through the
GST portal. The Court’s attention has been drawn to a decision of
the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dated 10th Septem-
ber, 2018 in W.P. (MD) No. 18532/2018 (Tara Exports v. Union of In-
dia) where after acknowledging the procedural difficulties in claim-
ing input tax credit in the TRAN-1 form that Court directed the re-
spondents “either to open the portal, so as to enable the petitioner to
file the TRAN-1 electronically for claiming the transitional credit or
accept the manually filed TRAN-1” and to allow the input credit
claimed “after processing the same, if it is otherwise eligible in law”.
11. In the present case also the Court is satisfied that the Petition-
er’s difficulty in filling up a correct credit amount in the TRAN-1
GST LAW TIMES  2nd July 2020  103