Court recognized the necessity for allowing rectification of bona fide errors in GST filings, affirming that claims should not be denied due to inadvertent mistakes.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral)

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

CM APPL. 33850/2020 (for exemption)

1. Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 10795/2020

3. Respondents have not filed a counter affidavit despite opportunity granted to them. Today, Mr. Farman Ali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents seeks further time for doing so. However, having regard to the nature of controversy arising in the present petition, need is not felt to grant further time to the respondents to file the counter affidavit. Further, we may also note that in several other matters comprising of a batch, counter-affidavits had not been filed, and the coordinate Bench of this court, to which one of us (Sanjeev Narula J.) is a member, has already heard the arguments and reserved the judgment. Accordingly we are proceeding to decide the present petition on the basis of the available record and the submissions made by the counsels.

4. By way of the present petition, directions are sought to allow the petitioner to modify/revise Form GST TRAN-1 filed by it, either by opening the GST portal or by permitting submission of manual modified/rectified Form.

5. Briefly stated, the Petitioner is set up as a not-for-profit company under Section 25 of the Companies Act, having its registered office in Delhi, for peering of internet service providers amongst themselves and for routing the domestic traffic within India. The Petitioner was earlier registered as a service provider under the Finance Act, 1994 and availed the CENVAT credit of Central Excise Duty, Service Tax etc. paid on input services, procured for providing output services and was discharging its output tax liability by utilizing the said credit.

6. With the advent of the GST laws, the Petitioner migrated to the new regime and got registered under the CGST Act in the State of Delhi. Petitioner also availed the benefit of the transitional provisions and sought to migrate the CENVAT credit of Rs.60,21,471/- by filing the prescribed Form TRAN-1 on 1st September, 2017, within the time prescribed under Rule 117 of the CGST Rules, 2017. It is the case of the Petitioner that due to unintentional and inadvertent error on its part, they failed to take into account certain invoices pertaining to inputs and/or input services on which service tax was paid under the erstwhile service tax regime. Realising this mistake in March, 2019, Petitioner approached Respondent No. 3 by way of a letter dated 29th March, 2019 requesting for the revision of the Form. Subsequently, the Petitioner also approached the Chief Executive Officer of Respondent No. 4 making a similar request vide letter dated 29th November, 2019. However, despite the above-noted and other representations given by the Petitioner, the Respondents took no action. Left with no other option, the petitioner has now approached this Court.

7. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that issue involved in the present case is covered by several decisions of this Court, and in particular the judgments rendered in Blue Bird Pure Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9250; Arvind Beauty Brands Retail Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., [W.P.(C.) No. 4556/2019 dated 7th August, 2019]; A.B. Pal Electricals Pvt ltd v. Union of India & Ors., [W.P.(C.) No. 6537/2019 dated 17th December, 2019]; SRC Aviation (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors., [W.P.(C.) No. 12167/2019 dated 17th December, 2019]; and Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 5701.

8. On perusal of the record, it emerges that Petitioner has filed TRAN-1 form within the time prescribed by the Respondents under the rules. Pet