The imposition of a rigid time limit for the transition of accrued CENVAT credit was held arbitrary and unconstitutional, recognizing it as a vested property right, allowing extensions based on individual circumstances.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Narula, J. All the four writ petitions seek identical relief in the nature of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to avail input tax credit of the accumulated CENVAT credit as of 30th June, 2017 by filing declaration Form TRAN-1 beyond the period provided under the CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX RULES , 2017 (hereinafter, the "CGST Rules"). Additionally, petitioners also assail Rule 117 of the CGST Rules on the ground that it is arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 to the extent it imposes a time limit for carrying forward the CENVAT credit to the GST regime. However, all the petitioners have unanimously stated that if the Court were to give directions to the respondents to permit them to file the statutory Form TRAN-1 to avail the input tax credit, they would be satisfied and not press for the relief of challenging the vires of the provisions of the Act.

2. This Court has allowed numerous petitions, relating to availment of input tax credit on account of delayed filing of Form TRAN-1. The controversy in the present petitions is no different, but nonetheless respondents have strongly objected to the directions sought in the present petitions, contending that the factual situation in each one of the present cases is quite different, and does not merit the relief granted to other taxpayers. It is argued that the Court has allowed the petitions only in those cases, where the delay had been occasioned on account of technical glitches in the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN). The facts of the instant cases are substantially distinguishable, and do not indicate or allege any such error or glitch on the network of the respondents relating to the filing of the TRAN-1 forms. It is further contended that the pleadings disclose that the delay in their cases did not occur on account of any technical glitch on the portal, but arose owing to other technical difficulties at the end of the assessees i.e. the petitioners. Petitioners controvert the stand of the respondent, and contend that they are entitled to similar relief, notwithstanding the fact that the cases of the petitioners may not be strictly covered by the Circular of the respondents specifically dealing with cases where technical glitches had restrained or blocked or caused difficulties to the taxpayers from filing of the TRAN-1 forms on the common GST portal.

3. Regardless of respondents' objection that there were no technical anomalies in the fling vis-a'-vis the petitioners, we perceive no significant difference in the circumstances recounted in the cases before us in comparison to those decided earlier. Pertinently, sinc