Page 96 - GSTL_2nd July 2020 _Vol 38_Part 1

14 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 38
in time is sufficiently explained and justified, we see no good ground or reason
to deny the petitioners another opportunity to belatedly file their TRAN-1 forms.
Nevertheless, since the respondents fervently contest the petitions, we permitted
the Learned Counsels to make elaborate submissions as we feel that an authorita-
tive decision is necessary to put the controversy to rest. Thus, this decision, ex-
haustively sets forth our reasons for allowing the petitions.
4. The facts of each case are different, however, since the controversy is
identical, it is not necessary to meticulously note the details of each case and it
would suffice to take note of only the essential facts of each case.
W.P. No. 8496/2019
5. The petitioner is in the business of advertising, brand promotion and
public relation management, as a part of Bennett Coleman Group of companies
[Times Group], It operates from various states throughout India, including New
Delhi. It was registered under the provisions of Chapter V of the Finance Act,
1994 for service tax and was discharging its liability by way of filing service tax
returns. The service tax return for the period from April, 2017 to June, 2017 was
filed on 11th August, 2018 and the same exhibited an accumulated Cenvat credit
of INR 7,28,05,293. This accumulated Cenvat credit balance is inter alia attributa-
ble to the New Delhi premises of the petitioner. Petitioner had Cenvat credit re-
flected in the service tax return for the period April, 2017 to June, 2017 and was
eligible to carry forward the said Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 60,15,498/-.
Petitioner contends that on 2nd January, 2018, based on the advice of its consult-
ant, it was under the belief that it was eligible for refund under Section 142(3) of
the CGST Act, and the consultant filed an online refund application. However
due to technical glitch, an error appeared on the screen. Thereafter, on 13th Feb-
ruary, 2018, when petitioners’ consultant again tried to upload the refund appli-
cation for Cenvat credit, yet again an error occurred and the message ‘proxy er-
ror’ was displayed on the screen. Petitioner’s consultant visited the office of the
Assistant Commissioner of GST to enquire about the error and was informed that
Petitioner was not eligible for the refund under Section 142(3) of the Act. On be-
ing apprised of this legal position, physical copy of Form TRAN-1 was filed on
24th August, 2018 along with supporting invoices before Deputy/Assistant
Commissioner of Central Excise, GST East Division. Petitioner was informed that
the application would be verified and it would be intimated about the outcome.
Thereafter, vide letter dated 30th August, 2018, additional documents as required
by the respondents were also submitted, but nothing was heard in this regard.
Eventually, petitioner filed writ petition W.P. (C) 3099/2019 before this Court
praying for refund or carry forward of all the accumulated Cenvat credit. Vide
order dated 28th March, 2019, respondents were directed to obtain instructions
as to whether the refund/carry forward credit application could be processed
and if GST Council can consider such cases of hardship on individual basis.
6. Petitioner has now filed the present petition seeking writ in the na-
ture of Certiorari impugning Rule 117(1) of CGST Rules as ultra vires Section
140(1) of the CGST Act and in the alternative, seeking directions to read down
the provisions of Rule 117.
W.P. (C) 11040/2019
7. In this case, petitioner claims that in terms of the latest service tax re-

GST LAW TIMES  2nd July 2020  96