ORDER :

(Ujjal Bhuyan, J.)

1. This common order will dispose of both the writ petitions.

2. We have hard Sri M.Naga Deepak, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.B.Narasimha Sarma, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department, for all the respondents.

3. Grievance of the petitioners in both the writ petitions pertain to alleged inaction of the respondents in permitting the petitioners to rectify the errors made by the petitioners in Transition Form – l (TRAN-l).

4. Be it stated that both the petitioners are service providers and are registered under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (briefly ‘the CGST Act’ hereinafter).

5. It is stated that petitioner in W.P.No.14987 of 2021 had Central Value Added Tax (CENVAT) credit to the tune of Rs.4,36,419.00 (Rupees four lakhs, thirty six thousand, four hundred and nineteen only) in its account as on 30.06.2017. Petitioner in W.P.No.14998 of 2021 had CENVAT credit to the tune of Rs.5,39,568.00 (Rupees five lakhs, thirty nine thousand, five hundred and sixty eight only) in its account as on 30.06.2017.

5.1. In view of Section 140 of the CGST Act, read with Rule 117 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 (briefly ‘the CGST Rules’ hereinafter), petitioners were entitled to carry forward the above credits when the Goods and Service Tax (GST) regime came into force.

5.2. Petitioners filed TRAN –l form in both the cases on 26.12.2017, which is stated to be within the period specified for submission of such form. It is stated that initially the due date for filing TRAN-l form was 27.12.2017, which was subsequently extended to 31.03.2020. It is further stated that due to inadvertence, in the column under the heading ‘Eligible duties paid on such inputs’, petitioners entered ‘0’ in place of the CENVAT credit to be carried forward.

5.3. Realizing the mistake made, petitioners submitted representations dated 04.03.2020 requesting respondent No.1 to permit them to rectify the inadvertent error in the TRAN-l form. However, there has been no response from the respondents. Aggrieved, the present writ petitions have been filed.

6. Identical counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 5 in both the cases. For convenience, we take up the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in W.P.No.14987 of 2021.

6.1. Stand taken in the counter affidavit is that facility for one time revision of TRAN-l form was inserted in the CGST Rules, 2017 as Rule 120A vide notification No.34/2017/CT dated 15.09.2017. Last date for such revision of TRAN-l declaration was extended up to 27.12.2017.

6.2. It is further stated that though petitioners had filed TRAN-1 declarations within the time limit, in terms of Rule 117(4) of the CGST Rules, petitioners had to file TRANS -2 form by 31.03.2018. But no such TRAN – 2 forms were filed by the petitioners by such date.

6.3. GST Council in its 13th and 14th meetings had considered the representations of the petitioners seeking permission to revise TRAN-l forms to include transitional credit of the aforesaid amounts, but has not approved such revision, which was communicated to the petitioners by the GST net work vide email dated 09.07.2021.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no provision either under the CGST Act, or under the CGST Rules, for rectification of errors made in TRAN-l form. Therefore, this court should direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to rectify the errors in TRAN –l form, and thereafter to take a decision on the claim of the petitioners for carrying forward of the CENVAT one way or the other.

7.1. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on a decision of the High Court of Delhi in SUPER INDIA PAPER PRODUCTS BENLON INDIA LTD. vs. UNION OF INDIA, 2021(6)TMI 108, as well as a decision of the Karnataka High Court in UNION OF INDIA vs. M/s ARAVIND LIFESTYLE BRANDS LTD, 2019(12) TMI 780.

8. On the other hand, Mr. B.Narasimh