1. By filing this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for the following substantial reliefs :

“(A) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents to act on the representations made by the petitioner and grant transitional credit under Section 140(1) of the Central GST Act in electronic credit ledger or otherwise as claimed by the petitioner in GST TRAN-1.”

2. The facts leading to filing of the present writ application are as under:-

2.1 The writ applicant M/s. Jai Electrical Industries is carrying the business of manufacturing of all types of Electrical Motors, Monoblock Pump, Monoset Pumps etc. and earlier, the firm was registered under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and thereafter, the registration was migrated under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘GST Act’) w.e.f. 01.07.2017.

2.2 According to the case of the writ applicant, the firm had eligible CENVAT credit of central excise duty of ₹ 8,35,435/- and it was duly reflected in ER-1 return filed on 10.07.2017 for the period of June-2017. According to the claim of the writ applicant, as provided under Section 140 of the CGST Act, the firm is eligible to take in its electronic credit ledger, the transitional credit of ₹ 8,35,435/-, which was carried forward in the return relating to the year under consideration. It is further case of the writ applicant that, in order to get the eligibility of the amount, the firm had submitted its declaration in Form GST TRAN-1 for transitional credit within the stipulated time limit before 27.12.2017 and also complied with all other conditions of Section 140 of the GST Act and the Rules framed thereunder for claiming such transitional credit. According to the case of the writ applicant, at the time of suo motu internal audit, it came to know that, the transitional credit had not been reflected in their electronic credit ledger due to technical glitches in GSTN system and to resolve the issue, had raised the grievances on GST portal and furnished necessary check list along with the supporting documents. However, till date, the amount is not reflected in the electronic credit ledger.

3. In these circumstances, the writ applicant has come up before this Court for necessary relief as indicated above.

4. We have heard Mr. Kuntal Parikh, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant, Mr. Ankit Shah, the learned standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 and Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, the learned AGP appearing for the respondent No.4 & 5.

5. Mr. Kuntal Parikh, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant would submit that, after filing the Form TRAN-1 within the prescribed time limit, the transitional credit has not been reflected in the electronic ledger, merely because of the technical difficulties and after so many reminders to the respondents, no action was taken to resolve the issue of transitional credit. He has urged that, the claim of the writ applicant is neither rejected nor the respondents have intervened in the matter for resolving the technical glitches/errors occurred in filing the claim and therefore, due to inaction on the part of the respondents, the writ applicant is not getting benefit of the legitimate tax credit.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Ankit Shah, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 vehemently opposed the writ application and contended that, the writ applicant failed to file TRAN-1 successfully within the stipulated time period and therefore, the amount of eligible credit could not be reflected in the electronic credit ledger.

7. Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, the learned AGP appearing for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 reiterated the arguments made by Mr.Ankit Shah and further submitted that, the identical issue decided by this Court in the case of M/s. Siddharth Enterprises & Anr. Vs. The Nodal Officer & Ors, [SCA/5758/2019] and the same is challenged before the Apex Court and therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the writ application may not be entertained.

8. The respondent No.2-Commissioner of Central Tax (GST) has filed the affidavit-in-reply for and on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3. The relevant paras 3, 4, 5 & 7 of the affidavit-in-reply reads thus:

“3. It is respectfully submitted that as per ER-1 filed on 10.07.2017 for the month of June-2017, closing balance of CENVAT was as under:-

However, petitioner was given a facility to carry forward the unutilized input credits under pre-GST regime under section 140(1) by filing a online from named “TRAN-1” and also allowing the credit of taxes paid on the stock as on 30th June 2017 as GST credit under section 140(3) of CGST Act r/w Rule 117 of CGST Rules, 2017 as amended inter alia requires the petitioner to file Form GST TRAN-1 & GST TRAN-2 electronically. Initially, the due date to file Form TRAN-1 was set to be 27.12.2017.

Subsequently, the government has provided a window enabling the tax payers to file the Form TRAN-1 till 31.03.2018 and the petitioner has to file refund claim for closing balance of ₹ 73,594/- they had in their personal ledger account on 30.06.2017.

4. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner had tried to file GST TRAN 1 on 10.07.2017, but they failed to submit the said declaration electronically meant for carrying forward the eligible credit balance as on 30.06.2017. The petitioner has mentioned in their correspondence dated 06.09.2018, 24.01.2019 made with State Tax Authorities as well as Central GTS that GST TRAN 1 was not filed successfully but it was only saved. And accordingly they raised grievance on GSTIN. Since the petitioner had not submitted GST TRAN 1 on 01.09.2018, amount of eligible credit could not be reflected in electronic credit ledger.

5. It is respectfully submitted that after roll out of GST, GSTN has been set up to cater to the needs of GST. The GSTN is developing a common GST portal and applications for registration, payment, return etc. The GSTN would also be integrating the common GST portal with the existing tax administration, IT systems and would be building building interfaces for taxpayers. Accordingly, petitioner had to file any of their claim/grievance on GSTN electronically and as provided under Section 140(3) of CGST Act r/w Rule 117 of CGST Rules, 2017 for carrying forward of credit as on 30.06.2017 through GST TRAN 1 electronically. Hence, their grievance cannot be resolved manually.

7. Credit available on 30.06.2017 was admissible to carry forward through GST TRAN 1 electronically in terms of Rule 117 of CGST, 2017 upto 31.03.2019. Due to non-submission of GST TRAN 1 electronically, eligible credit is not being reflected in the petitioner’s assessee has been restricted and all official work is to be taken care of electronically through GSTN only. Hence, officers are unable to resolve the grievance manually.”

9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and considering the materials on record, it is not in dispute that, to avail the benefit of unutilized input credits under the pre-GST regime, the writ applicant had filed TRAN-1 on 10.07.2010 electronically, however, it was not successfully uploaded due to some technical glitches, but at the same time, the form was saved on the portal. It is also an admitted fact that, during the internal audit dated 24.04.2019 undertaken by the jurisdictional tax officer, the writ applicant came to know that the transitional credit had not been reflected in the electronic credit ledger due to technical glitches in the GSTN system. In view of the Circular issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, the writ applicant had ventilated the grievance to resolve the technical issue at the GST portal and accordingly, the respondents had advised to the writ applicant to approach jurisdictional tax officer with the evidence of technical glitches/errors.

10. We are of the view that, the respondents failed to resolve the issue as raised by the writ applicant in the present writ application, despite the fact that, the Form TRAN-1 was filed within time limit, but it was not successfully uploaded due to technical glitches/error on the portal. We do not find any fault on the part of the writ applicant while claiming the CENVAT credit. We take the notice of the fact that, after various representations made by the writ applicant, the respondents have neither rejected the claim nor resolved the technical issue of transitional credit, which has not been reflected in the electronic credit ledger.

11. In view of the aforesaid facts and the discussions made hereinabove, we dispose of this writ application directing the respondents to consider and act upon the representation dated 30.01.2019 made by the writ applicant (at page 52 of the writ application) and decide the claim of the writ applicant in accordance with law and take appropriate action for transitional credit in the electronic credit ledger of the writ applicant, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. However, we make it clear that we have not examined the merits of the eligibility of the claim of transitional credit of ₹ 8,35,435/-. In case of any difficulty, the writ applicant is at liberty to approach this Court.

12. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to Mr. Ankit Shah, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, the learned AGP appearing for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 for its onward communication.