The entitlement to Input Tax Credit cannot be denied on account of procedural problems and technical glitches.

JUDGMENT

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J. - The writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus to command the authorities to allow revision and/or correction of Form GST TRAN-1 either on the portal or manually for the purpose of claiming transitional credit under Section 140 read with Rule 117 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'CGST Act').

2. The petitioner claims to be an authorized Maruti Dealer and is duly registered with the CGST authorities as well as SGST authorities. The petitioner claims that post introduction of CGST Act with effect from July 1, 2017 the petitioner is entitled to carry forward Input Tax Credit in Form TRAN-1 for the period from July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017 under Section 140 of CGST Act read with Rule 117 of CGST Rules. The petitioner claims that due to lack of awareness of the procedures, technical glitches and also that GST being a new and complex system to operate, the form relating to 'Spares and Accessories' was incorrectly uploaded under Table 7(d) of TRAN-1 instead of 7(b). The petitioner claims that Input Tax Credit amounting to Rs.11,78,000/- was available upon eligible stock declared under the 'Spares and Accessories' count. Petitioner further states that filing of TRAN-1 in the incorrect table was also brought to the notice of the concerned department but the department did not respond to such communication. The petitioner further claims that he has filed GSTR-3B form for the month of February 2018 on June 1, 2018 under IGST heading but the same was not taken into consideration by the concerned authority. On such grounds, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking the relief as mentioned hereinbefore.

3. Dr. Barik, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the entitlement of the writ petitioner to the Input Tax Credit cannot be denied on account of procedural problems. He submits that a Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in a batch of appeals, being MAT 552 f 2020 with IA No.CAN 1 of 2020 and CAN 2 of 2020 (Nodal Officer, Jt. Commissioner, IT Grievance, GST Bhawan vs. M/s. Das Auto Centre) and others, while considering an identical issue has passed a judgment on December 14, 2021 by giving liberty to the assessee to file individual tax credit in GSTR-3B Form with liberty to the Assessing Officer to verify the genuineness of such claim.

4. Mr. Saha, learned advocate assisted by Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appears for the State and does not dispute the submissions of the learned advocate for the petitioner that the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of M/s. Das Auto Centre (supra) is still holding the field. He, however, submits that the Input Tax Credit can be allowed only after proper verification by the concerned authority.

5. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and considered the materials on record.

6. A registered person is entitled to carry forward Input Tax Credit as provided under Section 140 of the CGST Act read with Rule 117 of the CGST Rules. However, the claim of the petitioner that he is eligible for Input Tax Credit is subject to verification by the Assessing Officer.

7. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that this entitlement to the Input Tax Credit is being denied on technical ground.

8. It is well settled that the entitlement of the petitioner to the Input Tax Credit, a vested right, cannot be denied on account of procedural problem.

9. After going through the materials on record this Court finds that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment dated December 14, 2021 passed in the case of M/s. Das Auto Centre (supra). In the said decision the Hon'ble Division Bench after taking into consideration the decision of various High Courts as well as the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows.

'Be that as it may, we would wish to point out from the recent decision of the High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of GST and Cen