LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the writ petition is an assessee under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, who migrated to the GST regime pursuant to the enactment of the Central Goods and Service Tax/ State Goods and Service Tax (CGST/SGST) Act, 2017. The petitioner, consequent to the migration to the GST regime, was entitled to carry forward the tax paid on purchase of goods during the VAT regime to the GST regime and to avail credit under the latter regime. The transition provisions, which govern the transfer of credit under the CGST/SGST Act and Rules are Sections 139 to 143 of the Act and Rule 117 of the SGST Rules. As part of the procedure for the transfer of credit, the petitioner had to file a declaration in Form GST TRAN-1 on or before 27.12.2017 for the purposes of successfully migrating the credit to the GST regime. In the writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is essentially that, while he attempted to upload the necessary details in the web portal W.P. of the GSTN, he was not able to do so because of a technical glitch that was encountered in the system. The request made by him before the respondent authorities under the GST Act also did not meet with any success, and the stand of the respondents was that since the petitioner had not complied with the procedural requirements before the cut-off date prescribed, he could not carry forward the credit, that had accrued to him under the erstwhile regime, into the GST regime. In the writ petition, the communication issued to the petitioner by the respondents denying him the facility of transfer of accrued credit is impugned, inter alia, on the contention that the substantial rights available to him under the GST Act cannot be deprived solely on account of a technical lapse that was occasioned at the instance of the respondents. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that while they had made attempts to revise the GST TRAN - 1 which they had uploaded in the system before 27.12.2017, the said revision of the TRAN - 1 Form could not be carried out within the time on account of the technical glitches.

(2.) Through statements filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the complaints with regard to system error and the alleged inability of assessees to upload the necessary details for carrying forward the credit earned by them under the erstwhile regime to the GST regime on or before 27.12.2017, were considered by the respondents, who have the wherewithal to ascertain whether an assessee had in fact made an attempt to log into the system or not. It is stated that system log maintained by the respondents clearly reveals cases where an assessee attempted to log into the system but failed, and also whether or not the inability of the assessee to upload the necessary details was on account of a system error or otherwise. It is stated that inasmuch as the system logs in the instant case reveals that the petitioner had in fact made an attempt to log into the system before 27.12.2017, his case would be covered by category B3, in the categorization drawn up by the respondents. It is stated that in the case of such assessees, while their attempt at logging in would be recorded by the system, it would have to be established that the inability to upload the details was on account of any system error occasioned at the instance of the respondents.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appealing for the respondents.