1. Mr. Uchit Sheth, learned advocate for the petitioners, submitted that the respondents do not dispute the fact that the petitioner is entitled to transitional input credit. It was submitted that the Form GST TRAN1 was filed by the petitioner within the stipulated time and even that position is not disputed. It was contended that tax credit is a vested right and unless it is established that the petitioner has failed to claim it within the prescribed time, the respondents are not justified in denying the claim for transitional input credit. According to the learned advocate, such cases are required to be decided in a rational manner and the Notification dated 10.09.2018 issued by the Government of India is required to be read in a purposive manner. However, the IT Grievance Redressal Committee has considered only those defined errors showing technical glitch, but has not considered other errors.

2. Referring to the minutes of the 4th meeting of IT Grievance Redressal Committee held on 12th February, 2019, it was pointed out that the Committee had categorised the errors on account of technical/system issues and cases where there was no evidence of technical/system issues and has allowed filing of Form GST TRAN1 only in those cases where, according to it, there were technical/system issues.

3. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Union of India, 1999 (106) E.L.T. 3 (SC), for the proposition that if on the inputs the assessee had already paid the taxes on the basis that when the goods are utilised in the manufacture of further products as inputs thereto, then the tax on these goods gets adjusted which are finished subsequently. Thus, a right accrued to the assessee on the date when it paid the tax on the raw materials or the inputs and that right would continue until the facility available thereto gets worked out or until those goods existed.

4. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Pune v. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd., 1999 (112) E.L.T. 353 (SC), for a similar proposition.

5. It was submitted that therefore, once it is established that the petitioner had tried to file the Form GST TRAN1, the respondents are not justified in denying the petitioner the benefit of transitional input credit merely on the ground that the error was not a defined one.

6. In response to the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Ankit Shah, learned senior standing counsel for the respondent No.1, invited the attention of the court to the Minutes of the 4th meeting of the IT Grievance Redressal Committee (ITGRC) held on 12.02.2019, to submit that the Committee has not rejected the case of the petitioner, but has observed that in such cases, the procedure laid out under circular dated 03.12.2018 of CBIC seemed applicable, and proper prescribed process was required to be followed and that such cases should not have been forwarded to the GSTC Secretariat. It was submitted that therefore, it is not as if the petitioners claim has been rejected; however, the issue is required to be decided by the concerned Nodal Officer as per the procedure laid down in the Circular dated 03.12.2018.

7. Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.2, submitted that the representation made by the petitioner is still pending consideration before the respondent No.2.

8. In view of the above, issue Rule, returnable on 13.11.2019. The decision, if any, taken by the respondent No.2 on the representation made by the petitioner shall be placed on the record of this court on or before the returnable date, if available. To be listed on the admission board.