Page 97 - GSTL_2nd July 2020 _Vol 38_Part 1

2020 ] BRAND EQUITY TREATIES LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 15
turn from April, 2017 to June, 2017, it had accumulated Cenvat credit balance of
INR 72,80,529/-. Petitioner forms part of a bigger conglomerate and the tax oper-
ations are undertaken at group level. Owing to dependence at group level in the
context of tax compliances and multiple entities involved, petitioner was unable
to file the declaration in Form TRAN-1 within the prescribed due date. As a re-
sult, it was deprived of taking forward the accumulated credit in the GST regime.
W.P. (C) 196/2019
8. In terms of the last service tax return, petitioner had Cenvat credit of
Rs. 6,04,47,033/-. It submitted form GST TRAN-1 online on 24th November, 2017
in order to avail the transitional credit. Thereafter, it received a letter dated 1st
January, 2018 from the office of Assistant Commissioner GST seeking its re-
sponse in relation to verification of input tax credit claimed in form TRAN-1.
While collating the documents in response to the said communication, petitioner
realised that credit of Rs. 6,04,47,033/- was mistakenly not carried forward. Peti-
tioner again tried to submit the said form on the GST common portal with a view
to avail this credit. Additionally, petitioner replied to the aforenoted communica-
tion dated 1st January, 2018 explaining that it had inadvertently missed reflecting
the correct Cenvat credit in the Form, in conformity with the last service tax re-
turn. In support of its claim, petitioner also furnished the last service tax return
[ST-3 form]. On 6th April, 2018, petitioner made another reference to the re-
spondents highlighting the Circular issued by Central Board of Indirect Taxes
and Customs wherein a mechanism was introduced to assist the taxpayers who
had faced difficulties owing to technical glitches. Despite repeated follow ups, no
reply was received from the respondents and finally, vide letter dated 9th May,
2018, respondents informed the petitioner that the credit of Rs. 6,04,47,033/- was
not populated in TRAN-1 and, thus, the credit thereof cannot be extended to the
petitioner.
W.P. (C) 13203/2019
9. In this case as well, petitioner contends that it had been trying to up-
load its claim for carrying forward the credit in form GST TRAN-1 but could not
do so due to error in the system of the respondents. Petitioner enquired from
other professionals and learnt that apart from it, large number of assessees were
facing similar problems and could not upload the claim of input credit on ac-
count of system error/failure. Petitioner submits that on account of utter confu-
sion and chaos that resulted in failure to upload Form GSTR TRAN-1, it could
not upload the claim on the common portal within time. Petitioner also engaged
in correspondence with the respondents, however there has been no effective
resolution to its grievance.
Submissions of the parties
10. The Learned Counsels for the petitioners have strongly relied upon
the judgment in A.B. Pal Electricals v. Union of India (W.P. (C) 6537/2019, decided
on 17-12-2019) [2020 (33) G.S.T.L. 8 (Del.)] and several others, which have been
referred therein to canvass that the instant cases are squarely covered by the said
decision. At the same time it is urged that since the GST system at the relevant
point of time, and even presently, is in a nascent “trial and error” phase, peti-
tioners should not be made to suffer on account of inefficiency in the systems of
the respondents; by denying them the credit of the accumulated Cenvat credit on

GST LAW TIMES  2nd July 2020  97