Page 52 - GSTL_13th August 2020_Vol 39_Part 2

138 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 39
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Avinash Poddar, for the Petitioner.
S/Shri Devang Vyas, ASGI and Utkarsh Sharma, for
the Respondent.
[Order per : Sonia Gokani, J. (Oral)]. - Notice returnable forthwith.
2. Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India Mr. Devang Vyas
waives service of Notice on behalf of Union of India and Learned AGP Mr. Ut-
karsh Sharma waives service of Notice on behalf of respondent State and its au-
thorities.
3. This is a petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution
seeking directions to the respondents to permit the petitioner to file revision of
GST TRAN-1 electronically or manually and allow the credit of the Input Tax
Credit (ITC) of Rs. 16,07,556/- for the goods held in stock as claimed in accord-
ance with Section 140(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 in its
online electronic credit ledger for payment of its output tax liability.
4. It is demonstrated from the petition that the petitioner already had
filed GST TRAN-02 and it claimed Rs. 11,29,000/- as a credit. Copy of the GST
TRAN-02 filed, is forming part of the record of the petition. It is averred that by a
bona fide misunderstanding of the Accountant of the petitioner who was under
the impression that the petitioner was only entitled to 60% of the credit, GST
TRAN-02 came to be fled. It is averred in the petition that in fact the petitioner
would be entitled to the entire amount of credit by filling GST TRAN-01. There-
fore, there remains differential amount of credit of Rs. 4,78,556/-.
5. It is pointed out by the petitioner that specific right given under Sec-
tion 140 of the CGST Act, 2017, could not be curtailed or defeated on account of
procedural lapse. Relying on the decision of this Court rendered in case of M/s.
Siddharth Enterprises through Partner Mahesh Liladhar Tibdewal v. The Nodal Officer
in Special Civil Application No. 5758 of 2018 and allied matters [2019 (29)
G.S.T.L. 664 (Guj.)], it is urged that mere procedural mistake in filling of Form
GST TRAN-01 could not be held as a ground for precluding the petitioner to
claim the right even under the existing provisions.
6. We have heard Learned Advocate Mr. Avinash Poddar for the peti-
tioner. On the lines of the petition, he made detailed submissions. He drew our
attention to the fact that two communications have already been sent to Deputy
State Tax Commissioner as well as State Tax Commissioner respectively on 5-8-
2019 and 20-11-2019. He urged that both these communications have not been
replied to though much of time is elapsed. He also agrees that according to him
the decision of this Court of September, 2019 would bind the authorities which
ought to have responded to the last communication of November, 2020 in wake
of the binding decision.
7. Learned AGP Mr. Utkarsh Sharma requested that notice may not be
issued and short time be accorded to him to obtain required information from
the authorities. Mr. Sharma has urged that the petitioner ought to have ap-
proached the concerned department even if there has been no response as direct
approach in this Court by way of writ petition is not desirable. He further sub-
mitted that if opportunity is given to him, he would take further instructions
from the department and let the Court know of the reasons of non-response from
the authorities till date.
8. Having heard the Learned Advocates for the respective parties and
having noticed that the petitioner had already filled-in the Form GST TRAN-02

GST LAW TIMES  13th August 2020  52