The court held that the procedural timelines for filing TRAN-1 were directory and not mandatory, and that the Petitioner's case was covered by Rule 117(1A) of the CGST Rules. The court also criticized the Respondents for their non-disclosure of reasons for denying the Petitioner's claim and their arbitrary rejection of the Petitioner's case.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Narula, J. - The Petitioner has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to allow it to avail the short transitioning of Input Tax Credit ("ITC") amounting to Rs. 5,51,33,699/- by either updating the electronic credit ledger at their back end,in accord with the details of credit submitted by the Petitioner or allowing them to revise the Form GST TRAN-1, in conformity with the returns filed under the existing laws that stand repealed by the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 ("CGST Act").

BRIEF FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Petitioner- SKH Sheet Metals Components Private Limited, set up its unit at Pune, Maharashtra for manufacture of final products and sale to OEMs. The indirect tax structure prevailing in India, prior to 1st July, 2017, comprised of multifarious duties and taxes imposed by the Centre as well as States. Excise duty was levied under Central Excise Act, 1994 ("Excise Act'') on manufacture of excisable goods; service tax was imposed under Finance Act, 1994 ("Finance Act'') on provision of services in the taxable territory. Similarly, sale of goods was exigible to Value Added Tax ("VAT'') imposed under respective State VAT enactments and Central Sales Tax ("CST'') under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ("CST Act''), depending on whether the goods were sold intra-state or inter-state. [hereinafter the legislations referred hereinabove are being collectively referred to as "Existing Laws"]. In this regard, Petitioner obtained registration with the jurisdictional authorities under various legislations listed hereinabove. It also availed CENVAT credit of specified duties and taxes paid on inputs, capital goods and input services in terms of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (''Credit Rules'') and input tax credit of VAT paid on purchases in terms of Maharashtra VAT Act, 2002 ("MVAT Act''). Petitioner periodically filed returns by way of forms specified under the above-noted legislations, and declared the details of input balance of credit, credit availed during the return period, and closing balance of credit available for carry forward for the next period. For the period ending 30th June, 2017, the closing balance of credit available for carry forward, as declared by the Petitioner, reflects the figures tabulated hereunder:

3. The indirect tax regime had its watershed moment with the advent of the Goods and Service Tax, which has become operational by way of several enactments [hereinafter referred as "GST laws"], w.e.f. 1st July, 2017 ("Appointed Date") and existing laws stand repealed. The GST laws framed by the parliament and the state legislatures, recognize the fact that taxpayers had ITC under the existing laws, and provide for elaborate transitional arrangements to save the pending as well future claims relating to existing law made before, on or after the appointed day. In order to achieve this objective, GST laws permit the registered persons to migrate the amount of CENVAT Credit that was carried forward in the returns under the existing laws in the electronic credit ledger under GST laws.

4. Petitioner asserts that it is entitled to transitional credit of Rs. 6,52,58,081/- comprising of Central Excise Cenvat credit of Rs. 3,86,54,605/-, Service Tax Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,64,79,081/- and Input MVAT credit of Rs. 1,01,24,382/. In order to avail the credit in the electronic credit ledger under the GST laws, on 27th August, 2017, much before the last date specified by the Central Government, the Petitioner filed a Form prescribed for this purpose, known as "GST TRAN-l". However, on submission of the said Form, Petitioner realized that as against the tot