Page 106 - GSTL_2nd July 2020 _Vol 38_Part 1

24 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 38
time. Evidently, there is no other provision in the Act prescribing time-limit for
the transition of the Cenvat credit, and the same has been introduced only by
way of Rule 117. This provision also contains a proviso, which vests power with
the Commissioner to extend the period on the recommendations of the Council.
Indeed, the Commissioner has exercised such power and time period which was
initially to expire after 90 days, has been, as a matter of fact, extended till 29th
December, 2017. In fact, as noticed above, under sub-rule (1A) of Rule 117, for a
specific class of persons, the time limit has gone way beyond the period original-
ly envisaged, and has still not expired. Thus, there is nothing sacrosanct about
the time limit so provided. It is not as if the Act completely restricts the transition
of Cenvat credit in the GST regime by a particular date, and there is no rationale
for curtailing the said period, except under the law of limitations. The period of
90 days has no rationale and as noted above, extensions have been granted by
the Government from time to time, largely on account of its inefficient network.
18. In above noted circumstances, the arbitrary classification, intro-
duced by way of sub-rule (1A), restricting the benefit only to taxpayers whose
cases are covered by “technical difficulties on common portal” subject to recom-
mendations of the GST Council, is arbitrary, vague and unreasonable. What does
the phrase “technical difficulty on the common portal” imply? There is no defini-
tion to this concept and the respondent seems to contend that it should be re-
stricted only to “technical glitches on the common portal”. We, however, do not
concur with this understanding. “Technical difficulty” is too broad a term and
cannot have a narrow interpretation, or application. Further, technical difficulties
cannot be restricted only to a difficulty faced by or on the part of the respondent.
It would include within its purview any such technical difficulties faced by the
taxpayers as well, which could also be a result of the respondent’s follies. After
all, a completely new system of accounting; reporting of turnover; claiming cred-
it of prepaid taxes; and, payment of taxes was introduced with the implementa-
tion of the GST regime. A basket of Central and State taxes were merged into a
single tax. New forms were introduced and, as aforesaid, all of them were not
even operationalised. Just like the respondents, even the taxpayers required time
to adapt to the new systems, which was introduced as a completely online sys-
tem. Apart from the shortcomings in the system developed by GSTN Ltd., the
assessees also faced the challenges posed by low bandwidth and lack of comput-
er knowledge and skill to operate the system. It is very unfair on the part of the
respondents, in these circumstances, to expect that the taxpayers should have
been fully geared to deal with the new system on day-one, when they themselves
were completely ill-prepared, which led to creation of a complete mess. The re-
spondents cannot adopt different standards - one for themselves, and another for
the taxpayers. The GST regime heralded the system of seamless input tax credits.
The successful migration to the new system was a formidable and unprecedent-
ed task. The fractures in the system, after its launch, became visible as taxpayers
started logging in closer to the deadline. They encountered trouble filing the re-
turns. Petitioners who are large and mega corporations - despite the aid of ex-
perts in the field, could not collate the humongous data required for submission
of the statutory forms. Courts cannot be oblivious to the fact that a large popula-
tion of this country does not have access to the Internet and the filing of TRAN-1
was entirely shifted to electronic means. The Nodal Officers often reach to the

GST LAW TIMES  2nd July 2020  106