Page 95 - GSTL_2nd July 2020 _Vol 38_Part 1

2020 ] BRAND EQUITY TREATIES LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 13
Siddharth Enterprises v. Nodal Officer — 2019 (29) G.S.T.L. 664 (Guj.) — Referred ..................... [Para 20]
Union of India v. Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. — 2020 (34) G.S.T.L. J138 (S.C.) — Referred ..... [Para 20]
Willowood Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
— 2018 (19) G.S.T.L. 228 (Guj.) — Distinguished ........................................................... [Paras 11, 20]
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Abhishek A. Rastogi, Alok Yadav, Ms. Kavita
Jha, Shammi Kapoor, Ms. Kritika Kapoor, Ms. Swati
Agarwal, Ruchir Bhatia and Ms. Madhura M.N.,
Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Shiva Lakshmi & Ashim Sood, CGSCs, S/Shri
Amit Bansal, SSC, Ms. Nidhi Mohan Parashar, G.P.
with Aman Rewaria, Ms. Vipasha Mishra, Armaan
Pratap Singh, Anuj Aggarwal, Ankit Monga,
Harpreet Singh and Ms. Suhani Mathur, Advocates,
for the Respondent.
[Judgment per : Sanjeev Narula, J.]. - All the four writ petitions seek
identical relief in the nature of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to
permit the petitioners to avail input tax credit of the accumulated Cenvat credit
as of 30th June, 2017 by filing declaration Form TRAN-1 beyond the period pro-
vided under the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (hereinafter, the
“CGST Rules”). Additionally, petitioners also assail Rule 117 of the CGST Rules
on the ground that it is arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 to
the extent it imposes a time limit for carrying forward the Cenvat credit to the
GST regime. However, all the petitioners have unanimously stated that if the
Court were to give directions to the respondents to permit them to file the statu-
tory Form TRAN-1 to avail the input tax credit, they would be satisfied and not
press for the relief of challenging the vires of the provisions of the Act.
2. This Court has allowed numerous petitions, relating to availment of
input tax credit on account of delayed filing of Form TRAN-1. The controversy in
the present petitions is no different, but nonetheless respondents have strongly
objected to the directions sought in the present petitions, contending that the fac-
tual situation in each one of the present cases is quite different, and does not
merit the relief granted to other taxpayers. It is argued that the Court has al-
lowed the petitions only in those cases, where the delay had been occasioned on
account of technical glitches in the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN).
The facts of the instant cases are substantially distinguishable, and do not indi-
cate or allege any such error or glitch on the network of the respondents relating
to the filing of the TRAN-1 forms. It is further contended that the pleadings dis-
close that the delay in their cases did not occur on account of any technical glitch
on the portal, but arose owing to other technical difficulties at the end of the as-
sessees i.e. the petitioners. Petitioners controvert the stand of the respondent, and
contend that they are entitled to similar relief, notwithstanding the fact that the
cases of the petitioners may not be strictly covered by the Circular of the re-
spondents specifically dealing with cases where technical glitches had restrained
or blocked or caused difficulties to the taxpayers from filing of the TRAN-1
forms on the common GST portal.
3. Regardless of respondents’ objection that there were no technical
anomalies in the fling vis-a-vis the petitioners, we perceive no significant differ-
ence in the circumstances recounted in the cases before us in comparison to those
decided earlier. Pertinently, since the cause for not filing the TRAN-1 Form with-
GST LAW TIMES  2nd July 2020  95