Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Hygiene (India) Pvt. Ltd., sought a direction to the respondents to allow it to carry forward, in its electronic credit ledger, transitional input tax credit of Rs. 8,03,555 reflected as available in its last VAT return for the period ending 30th June 2017, being stock held on the appointed day. The petitioner could not furnish its GST TRAN-1 within the due date of 27th December 2017 on account of technical glitches on the portal. It thereafter wrote to the Respondent/Nodal Officer on 12th/19th June 2020 and again on 19th March 2021, requesting that the TRAN-1 window be reopened, but the Respondents failed to extend the filing date.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the petitioner, having been prevented by technical glitches from filing TRAN-1 within time, is entitled to a reopening of the portal or manual acceptance of the form.
  2. Whether such relief can be granted while identical rulings of the Delhi High Court are pending challenge before the Supreme Court.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner was denied transitional credit for no fault of its own, as the GST portal suffered technical glitches at the relevant time.
  • The issue is squarely covered by Blue Bird Pure Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors, W.P.(C) No. 3798/2019, and several other decisions of this Court directing the grant of transitional credit to registered persons.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The learned ASC accepted notice on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and pointed out that the judgments relied upon by the petitioner are pending adjudication before the Supreme Court in SLP(C) Nos. 7425-7428/2020, in which stay orders have been passed.

Court Order/Findings

  • The Court held that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petition pending.
  • The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to either re-open the online portal to enable electronic filing of TRAN-1, or to accept it manually, within eight weeks, and thereafter process the petitioner's claim in accordance with law.
  • The direction was, however, kept suspended during the pendency of the Special Leave Petitions and connected matters, and made subject to the outcome before the Supreme Court.

Important Clarification

  • Relief following the Blue Bird Pure line of decisions on belated TRAN-1 filing, though granted, is not final where the underlying precedent is itself under challenge before the Supreme Court.
  • Assessees obtaining such directions should track the outcome of SLP(C) Nos. 7425-7428/2020, as the benefit remains contingent on that decision.

Sections Involved

  • Section 140, CGST Act, 2017 — governs transitional arrangements for input tax credit carried forward from the pre-GST regime.
  • Rule 117, CGST Rules, 2017 — prescribes the timeline and procedure for filing the TRAN-1 declaration.

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of with directions in favour of the Assessee, but the operative benefit stands suspended pending the Supreme Court's decision in the connected Special Leave Petitions — a conditional, not final, win for the petitioner.

Related Case Laws

No related case laws are available on this site at present for cross-reference on this specific point.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
  • Case No.: W.P.(C) 4656/2022 & C.M.No.13974/2022
  • Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manmohan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma
  • Date of Order: 23rd March 2022

Link to Download the Order

Download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.