JUDGMENT

Petitioner challenges inter alia the communication rejecting the application of the petitioner to revise the form TRAN-1 under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

2. Petitioner was a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It is engaged in the trading of Iron and Steel products and other accessories and allied items. As on 30.06.2017, petitioner alleges to have Rs.19,28,654/- as unutilized input tax credit under the earlier tax regime. After the introduction of GST, petitioner submitted a declaration in form GST TRAN-1 on 01.09.2017 declaring the details of the credit to be claimed while filing form GST TRAN-2. However, while attempting to complete the form TRAN-2, petitioner received an error message stating that it had not declared anything in Part 7B of Table 7(a) of form GST TRAN-1 and hence petitioner cannot fill details in Table 4 of TRAN-2.

3. Pursuant to the receipt of the aforesaid error message and on verification, petitioner realised that, while filling up form GST TRAN-1, an inadvertent mistake was made by filling Table 7(d) of Part 7B of form GST TRAN-1 instead of Table 7(a) of Part 7B. The said mistake resulted in the petitioner unable to fill form GST TRAN-2 and transition the input tax credit to the electronic ledger.

4. According to the petitioner, the mix up of fields in the GST form occurred inadvertently, due to lack of awareness under a nascent legislation and the same ought not to be treated as fatal to the entitlement of the petitioner to obtain credit. Immediately thereafter, petitioner represented to the GST Council seeking redressal of its grievance and requesting permission to revise TRAN-1 in order to file TRAN-2. Petitioner received a reply from the 7th respondent pointing out that a one time facility to complete TRAN-1 procedure was extended to those assessees who could not file TRAN-1 due to glitches as prescribed in Circular No.39/13/2018-GST dated 03/04/2018. It was also mentioned that the period for revising the declaration in form GST TRAN-1 was extended till 27/12/2017 and that no orders for extension of time have been permitted. Subsequently, petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.20287 of 2018 and obtained an order permitting the petitioner to prefer a representation pointing out the grievance before the Nodal Officer appointed and the said officer was directed to take a decision on the representation, if filed.

5. Consequent to the said direction, petitioner preferred Ext.P6 representation to the 8th respondent. However, by communication dated 20.03.2019, the representation was rejected. Aggrieved by the rejection of petitioner's representation for correction of form GST TRAN-1, this writ petition is preferred. Amongst the reliefs claimed, petitioner has also sought for a direction to facilitate the corrections in form GST TRAN-1 and to allow credit of the unutilized input tax into the electronic credit ledger of the petitioner.

6. A statement has been filed on behalf of respondents 4 to 9 stating that “an inadvertent mistake” cannot be corrected and that only technical glitches were permitted to be corrected, that too, within the time limit for filing TRAN-1, which was 27.12.2019. It was mentioned that as per Rule 117 of the CGST rules, 2017 transition of credit by filing of form TRAN-1 within a period of 90 days from the appointed date i.e., 01.07.2017 subject to an extension of another 90 days. Respondents also pointed out that though the revision of TRAN-1 was permitted, as per Rule 120A of CGST Rules, 2017, the same can be used only once and alleged that the tax payers were given sufficient time to correct the mistakes that had crept in TRAN-1 form and further that the information regarding last dates for filing and its revision were all placed in public domain after giving due publicity. An IT Grievance Redressal Mechanism was also set up by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs to