Page 109 - GSTL_2nd July 2020 _Vol 38_Part 1

2020 ] BRAND EQUITY TREATIES LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 27
of the Tamil Nadu VAT Act. As per Section 19(11), if a dealer had not claimed
input tax credit for a particular month, the dealer could claim the input tax credit
before the end of the financial year or before 90 days from the date purchase,
whichever was later. When the petitioner filed its return for the assessment year
2007-08 - for want of tax invoices, the said input tax credit could not be claimed.
Thereafter, he filed revised returns claiming input tax credit. This was disal-
lowed by the commercial tax officer, which was then assailed in the writ petition
before the High Court. The High Court set aside the order confirming the pro-
posal to disallow. The matter reached before the Apex Court. Examining this
controversy, the Court made the observations as noted in Para 32 above. In the
said case, the input tax credit was not claimed and thus, in these circumstances,
the Court concluded that the benefits envisaged in the taxing statute has to be
extended as per the restrictions and conditions therein. Since the statute did not
give any indication w.r.t. extension of time for claim of input tax credit, the peri-
od could have been extended by authority. However, in the instant cases, the
input tax credit had been claimed in the erstwhile regime and was being reflect-
ed in the Cenvat credit ledger. This credit, under the Section 140(1), has to be car-
ried forward and in that sense, the vested right of the property of the petitioner
stood accrued and the same cannot be taken away by the respondents by way of
Rules. Likewise, the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Willowood (supra) is
also not relevant. Moreover, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Adfert Tech-
nologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [CWP No. 30949/2018 (O&M), decided on 4-11-
2019] [2020 (32) G.S.T.L. 726 (P&H)], took note of the decision in Willowood (su-
pra), and observed that the Gujarat High Court itself, as well as this Court in
subsequent judgments, has taken a contrary view to that expressed in Willowood
(supra) [Ref. : Siddharth Enterprises v. The Nodal Officer - 2019-VIL-442-GUJ = 2019
(29) G.S.T.L. 664 (Guj.), Jakap Metind Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India - 2019-VIL-556-GUJ
= 2019 (31) G.S.T.L. 422 (Guj.) and Indsur Global Ltd. v. Union of India 2014 (310)
E.L.T. 833 (Gujarat)]. The Court therefore, proceeded to grant relief by permitting
the taxpayer to file TRAN-1 Form electronically and manually beyond the stipu-
lated date. We have been further informed that the decision of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court was assailed before the Apex Court by Revenue in SLP
4408/2020 [2020 (34) G.S.T.L. J138 (S.C.)] and, the same has resulted in a dismis-
sal by order dated 28-2-2020. Even otherwise, the observations made in Willowood
(supra) have to be read in light of the fact that the time limit for filing TRAN-1
has been extended multiple times and the implementation of the GST regime and
the transition thereto has been inefficient and rough.
21. Lastly, we also find merit in the submissions of the petitioners that
Rule 117, whereby the mechanism for availing the credits has been prescribed, is
procedural and directory, and cannot affect the substantive right of the regis-
tered taxpayer to avail of the existing/accrued and vested Cenvat credit. The
procedure could not run contrary to the substantive right vested under sub-
section (1) of Section 140. While interpreting Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, the Supreme
Court has observed that the time limit for filing written statement is directory in
nature and not mandatory, and that “procedural law is not to be a tyrant but a
servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice” [Ref. : Salem Advocates Bar Asso-
ciation v. Union of India - AIR 2003 SC 189], Reference may also be made to Com-
missioner of Central Excise, Madras v. Home Ashok Leyland - (2007) 4 SCC 51 = 2007

GST LAW TIMES  2nd July 2020  109