JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Narula, J. - The present petition was heard along with the other batch of petitions relating to disputes and issues pertaining to filing of form GST TRAN-1 (hereinafter "TRAN-1 Form"). However, since the facts of the present case are slightly distinct from the remaining cases in the batch, it is considered appropriate to pass a separate order in the present petition.

2. Petitioner has approached this Court because despite filing the TRAN-1 Form within the prescribed time period, on 12th August, 2017, its electronic credit ledger does not reflect the transitional input tax credit balance.

3. The Petitioner- Falcon Technologies Pvt. Ltd, is engaged in trading activity, namely importing and/or domestically procuring various items such as broadcasting/radio equipment and selling the same to All India Radio/Doordarshan/Prasar Bharti and other private broadcasting channels. The Petitioner filed the prescribed TRAN-1 Form well in time before the deadline prescribed under Rule 117 of the CGST Rules, 2017 (hereinafter "the Rules"). However, the CENVAT credit has not been transitioned into the GST regime. The Petitioner furnished the screenshot evidencing filing of the TRAN-1 Form and has also raised the issue with the GST Authorities, but the same has not been resolved.

4. We have gone through the communications annexed with the petition. Petitioner has been shunted from one office to another, yet regrettably its grievance has not been addressed. Despite providing copies of proof of having filed the TRAN-1 Form, the Respondents have not taken any action. Emails written by the Petitioner to the help desk of the Respondents and to the Nodal Officer have also not yielded any favourable outcome. There is no counter affidavit filed by the Respondents and therefore we are unable to understand the reason for denial of the credit to the Petitioner. In this vein, we refer to the judgment of the Madras High Court in The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai Outer Commissionerate and Ors. v. Checkpoint Apparel Labeling Solutions India Pvt. Ltd.,2020 42 GSTL 505, Pending SLP (The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai Outer Commissionerate and Ors. v. Checkpoint Apparel Labeling Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Diary No.563/2021). wherein the Court deprecated the practice of the Revenue in making the Assessee run from pillar to post. The Court held as under: -

"12 ..............the Assessee to run from pillar to post, against the clear intention of the Government to allow credit of the un-utilized input credit under the earlier tax regime and the input service tax and excise duty to be set off under the new GST regime, to which a switch over was made with a big aplomb on 1.7.2017 by the Central Government."

5. The case of the Petitioner stands covered by a plethora of judgments of this Court including Aadinath Industries & Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.,2019 30 GSTL 478 Bhargava Motors v. Union of India and Ors.,2019 26 GSTL 164, Pending SLP (Union of India v. Bhargava Motors, Diary No. 38404/2019). and The Tyre Plaza v. Union of India.,2019 30 GSTL 222, Pending SLP (Union of India & Ors. v. The Tyre Plaza, SLP(C.) No. 15397/2020)

6. Accordingly, we allow the present petition and direct the Respondents to immediately process the TRAN-1 Form filed by the Petitioner in accordance with law and reflect the credit in the electronic credit ledger under the GST regime. For this purpose, in case the Petitioner is required to file the TRAN-1 Form once again, the Respondents shall open the GST portal to enable the Petitioner to do so or accept the same manually on or before 30th June, 2021.

7. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.

10. Keeping in mind the above discussion on the scope and purport of an order passed under Section 143A(1) of the Act, this Court will now deal with the case on hand.

11. The petitioners in the above petitions are the husband and wife and the respondent/complainant is common in both the cases. The peti