The court established that procedural timelines should not infringe upon vested rights to claim tax credits, especially in light of technical challenges faced by taxpayers.

ORDER

1. In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"a) Permit and allow the Petitioner to revise/correct/file afresh declaration in GST Form TRAN-1 to enable it to claim transitional credit of eligible duties to the tune of Rs.7,89,421/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Eighty Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty One Only), in respect of unavailed credit on Capital Goods on the appointed day in terms of Section 140(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017;

b) Declare the impugned action of the Respondents in not refunding/adjusting the unavailed CENVAT Credit existing in the name of the Petitioner as illegal and same be quashed and set aside;

c) Direct and declare that the time limit to file Form TRAN-1 specified in Rule 117(1) & 1(A) & Rule 120A of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 as being ultra vires Section 140(2) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 as also being arbitrary and unreasonable and violative of Article 14, 19(1 )(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India.

d) Direct and declare that due date contemplated under the Rule 117 of the CGST Rules to claim the transitional credit within a specified period of time as being procedural in nature and thus merely directory and not a mandatory.

e) Direct Respondent No. 4 to refund/carry forward the unavailed CENVAT Credit in the Electronic Ledger maintained by the Petitioner forthwith along with 18% interest."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had submitted the Form GST TRAN-1 under Section 140 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 in order to carry forward the eligible credit on capital goods on 13.12.2017.

Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner made a mistake in feeding the wrong details of unavailed CENVAT Credit of Rs.7,89,420.76.

Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner thereafter, took up the issue with the respondents in April, 2019 upon realizing such mistake.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Obelisk Composite Technology Lip Vs. Union of India & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18392/2019 decided on 12.12.2019), relevant portion of which reads as under:

"8. Accordingly, upon taking the aforesaid submissions into consideration, we are of the considered view that the challenge to the constitutional validity of Rule 117 no more being res Integra, this Court cannot entertain such prayer and accordingly reject the same, however, considering the fact that the Union of India and the Finance Department have extended the period contemplated under Rule 1A of Rule 117 till 31st December, 2019, we grant liberty to the petitioner to make an application before GST Council (through Standing Counsel, who is further requested to hand over the same to the jurisdictional officer) for forwarding the same to the GST Council to issue requisite certificate of recommendation alongwith requisite particulars, evidence and a certified copy of the order instantly and such decision be taken forthwith and if the petitioner's assertion is found to be correct, the GST Council shall issue necessary recommendation to the Commissioner to enable the petitioner to get the benefit of CENVAT credit within the stipulated time as stipulated by the Union of India i.e on or before 31st December, 2019."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (CWP No.30949 of 2018 (O&M)decided on 04.11.2019), relevant portion of which reads as under:

"4. From the perusal of record and arguments of counsel for both sides, we find that there are two types of cases namely (i) registered persons who did/could not file TRAN-1 by 27.12.2017