2022-VIL-124-GUJ
 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

 
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9151 of 2021

Date: 11/02/2022

M/s BODAL CHEMICALS LTD

Vs
 

UNION OF INDIA

 
AMAL PARESH DAVE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2

MR PARESH M DAVE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2

NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4

PRIYANK P LODHA for the Respondent(s) No. 1

 
CORAM

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE

 

GST - Assessee filed a

return in Form GSTR-6 with details of balance of Cenvat

Credit lying on
30.06.2017 for transferring such ISD credit to the GST regime -
on account of
an error in the GST network, ISD balance was not added in the

balance of the
ISD credit - writ applicant aggrieved by inaction of respondent in

not
correcting the balance in the ISD return by including the omitted balance
credit - HELD - the respondents cannot raise their hands in despair saying that
it

is not possible to correct or take care of the technical glitches - The writ
applicant has been running from pillar to post requesting the respondents to

provide a solution and take care of the technical error and glitch that
occurred as
regards furnishing the GSTR-6 Return for recording and distributing
the ISD

credit. As usual, there is no response at the end of the GSTN - the ISD
credit is a

tax paid by the registered person on input transactions and

therefore, the credit
of such tax already paid to the credit of the Govt is a
vested right of the person.

Such vested right cannot be defeated on account of

any irregularity in the

system evolved by the Government - Respondents are

directed to allow the writ
applicant to furnish manually the GSTR - 6 return
with details of the ISD credit

and also permit distribution of such credit to

the constituents of the writ

applicant - writ application is allowed

 
ORAL ORDER

(PER: HONOURABLE MR.

JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)
 

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

"(A)
That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or
any other
appropriate writ, direction or order, thereby directing the

Respondents to
allow the Petitioner to furnish, if necessary manually,

GSTR-6 Return with

details of ISD credit of Rs.20,52,989/-;
 

(B)
That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or

any other
appropriate writ, direction or order, thereby directing the
Respondents herein,
to allow the Petitioner to take ISD credit of

Rs.20,52,989/- in the ISD

Register and to distribute such credit of

Rs.20,52,989/- to the Petitioner's

Constituents;
 
 (C)
Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your

Lordships may
be pleased to direct the Respondents to allow the Petitioner
to distribute ISD
credit of Rs.20,52,989/- for being utilized in respect of

payment of GST
liability of the Petitioner;

 
(D)
Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your

Lordships may
be pleased to direct the Respondents to permit the

Petitioner to file all the

GSTR - 6 Returns for the previous period without
charging and recovering any
penalty or late fee;

(E)
An ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of para 17(C) above may kindly
be
granted;

(F)
Any other further relief that may be deemed fit in the facts and
circumstances
of the case may also please be granted."

2. It appears
from the materials on record that the writ applicant is a public
limited
company inter alia engaged in the business of manufacture of chemical

products
like H-Acid, Vinyl Sulphone, Dyes etc. It is not in dispute that the writ
applicant was registered as the Input Service Distributor (ISD) under the
Cenvat

Credit Rules read with the Central Excise Rules. Having regard to the
same, the

writ applicant was availing the credit of various input transactions

as the ISD for
distributing proportionate credit to each of the business
premises in accordance

with Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules.

 
3. The Central
Goods and Services Act, 2017 along with the CGST Rules came

into force with

effect from 01.07.2017. The un-utilized credit lying in the credit

register of
the assessees was allowed to be transferred and carried forward to
the
electronic credit ledger under the CGST Act by filing a return in the Form

STR
- 3 detailing therein the un-utilized credit and other relevant information. A
declaration in Form GST TRAN - 1 was also required to be filed by the
registered

person under the CGST Act by 27.12.2017.

 

4. In
November, 2017, the writ applicant filed GST TRAN - 1 wherein the balance

of
the Cenvat Credit lying with the writ applicant on 30.06.2017 including the
un-utilized balance of ISD Cenvat Credit was Rs.20,52,989/-. The writ applicant

filed a return in Form CGST - 06 with details of balance of Cenvat Credit lying
on

30.06.2017 for transferring such credit to the GST regime. However, on

account
of an error in the GST network, the Cenvat Credit balance in the return
was

shown at Rs.2,96,528/-. The ISD balance of Rs.20,52,989/- was not added or

included in the balance of the ISD credit in the return.

 

5. The writ
applicant has been requesting the Nodal Officer and also the

jurisdictional
Assistant Commissioner of GST for correcting the balance in the
ISD return by
including the balance credit of Rs.20,52,989/-. Over a period of

time, many
representations have been filed by the writ applicant as regards the

aforesaid
but of no avail. In such circumstances referred to above, the writ
applicant is
here before this Court with the present writ application.

 
6. We have
heard Mr. Tripathi, the learned counsel appearing for the writ

applicant and
Mr. Priyank Lodha, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

Union.
 

7. Mr. Lodha,
the learned Standing Counsel would submit that the writ applicant

cannot
redress any grievance as it failed to follow the due procedure for
distributing
the TRAN - 1 credit to its branch offices/units in accordance with the

existing
law. In such circumstances, the transitional credit would not be available

to
the writ applicant. He would submit that the ISD mechanism facilitates
distribution of credit of taxes paid to its units in the same tax period. The
ISD

itself cannot discharge any tax liability and remit the tax to Government
account.

 
8. A
Coordinate Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider an identical

matter
like the one on hand, in the case of M/s. Vishnu Aroma Pouching Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.
The Union of India, Special Civil Application No.5629 of 2019, decided on

14.11.2019 - 2020-VIL-164-GUJ. We quote the relevant

observations:

 
"2.8 Rule 88 (1) of CGST
Rules provides for generating a Unique

Identification Number at the common

portal for each debit or credit to the

electronic cash or credit ledger. In the

petitioner's case, this Unique
Identification Number (UIN) has also been
generated for each of the

challans. On the challan, the UIN is shown as 'BRN',

that is, Bank

Reference Number, the numbers being BRN 374991396 and BRN

374995316. All these numbers appear on the challans generated on the

common
portal (viz. the System), thereby signifying that the petitioner

has paid the

tax for August, 2017.
 

2.9
For completing the transaction, a Unique Identification Number

relating to
discharge of any liability is to be indicated in the corresponding
entry in the
electronic liability register. This procedural requirement of

sub-rule (2) of
rule 88 of the CGST Rules is, however, not completed in the
petitioner's case
because of a glitch and ultimate crashing down of the

common portal system in

September, 2017.

 
2.10
All the above referred details about CPIN, CIN and even BRN appear

on both the
challans dated 19.9.2017; and thus the payment of tax

aggregating to Rs.114.51
crores (rounded off) in cash towards the
petitioner's tax liability of August,
2017 is not under any dispute or doubt.

The remaining amount of Rs.14.12 crores

(rounded off) has been paid

from ITC legally available to the petitioner, and

debit entry of such ITC has
also been made in the credit ledger of the
petitioner. In the present

proceedings, there is no dispute or doubt about

payment of tax from ITC

also.
 

2.11
It is further the case of the petitioner that the entire tax liability of
August, 2017, having been discharged by 19th September, 2017, the

petitioner
proposed to furnish GSTR-3B on 20th September, 2017; but the

common portal was

not running properly due to heavy load because
millions of registered persons
were trying to upload their returns and the

common portal which was introduced

only in July, 2017 was not capable of

taking such a huge load. Consequently,

the petitioner's efforts to upload
GSTR-3B on 20th September, 2017 failed. On
the next day, that is, on

21st September, 2017, the System crashed. Due to this

unfortunate turn

of events, the System accepted the petitioner's GSTR-3B on

21.9.2017,
but the information and details in all the columns of this return
were

shown as "zero", though the payment of tax liability of the month had also

been fully made by the petitioner.

 

2.12
Since GSTR-3B was uploaded on the common portal in the above

manner, the
requirement of sub-rule (2) of rule 88 of the CGST Rules, that
is, indicating
the Unique Identification Number relating to discharge of the

liability in the corresponding

entry in the electronic liability register has
not been made in the System,
which operates on its own, namely that, the

petitioner has no access to make

any entry, etc. in the System, and

consequently not in the electronic liability

register maintained under rule
85 of the CGST Rules also.

2.13
The petitioner, therefore, immediately informed the Assistant
Commissioner in
charge of its unit vide a letter dated 21.9.2017 about the

payment and
discharging duty liability for August, 2017 but inability to

correct GSTR-3B
return submitted on GSTM portal. The office of the
Assistant Commissioner has
made an endorsement on this letter advising

the petitioner to approach the Help

Desk to sort out the issue.

 
2.14
According to the petitioner, for August, 2017, it has thereafter

furnished a
return in form GSTR-1 as prescribed under rule 59(1) of the
CGST Rules. All
required details, including the tax liability and also its

payment, are
furnished under GSTR-1 by the petitioner.

 
2.15
The petitioner's representative thereafter visited the Help Desk at

GST Bhavan,
Ambawadi, and informed the Officers there about the above

difficulty in respect
of GSTR-3B. The petitioner's representative was,
however, informed that any
error in GSTR-3B would be taken care of when

GSTR-2 and GSTR-3 were filed by

the concerned registered person. A copy

of Circular No.7/7/2017-GST dated 1st

September, 2017 issued by the
Government of India was also handed over to the
petitioner's

representative, wherein correction of erroneous details furnished

in Form

GSTR-3B was referred to. It is the case of the petitioner that as it

has
already furnished GSTR-1, it was eagerly waiting for GSTR-2 and GSTR-3

to
be prescribed by the Government; but neither was the format of GSTR-

2 and
GSTR-3 prescribed, nor was any provision made for such return for
a few months.

 
2.16
The petitioner's case was not that of furnishing erroneous details in

GSTR-3B,
but it was a case where the System had crashed. But since the

petitioner was
assured of correction of GSTR-3B, the petitioner waited for
form or format of
GSTR-2 and GSTR-3 being published, and also the

period that may be prescribed

by the Government for filing such returns

so as to correct and rectify GSTR-3B

of August, 2017. It is the case of the
petitioner that it has complied with the
procedural requirements and also

the obligation of discharging tax liability

for the subsequent months, that

is, September, 2017 and thereafter in

accordance with the law during this
period when the petitioners were waiting for
the Government's further

circular and clarification about GSTR-2 and GSTR-3.

But, in December,

2017, the Government decided that time period for filing of

GSTR-2 and
GSTR-3 for July, 2017 to March, 2018 would be worked out by a

Committee of Officers, and accordingly, the previous Circular dated

1.9.2017
was kept in abeyance till such time. Thus, the assurance given to

the
petitioner by the Officers manning the Help Desk did not result in any

positive
action or development. The return in form GSTR-3B for August,
2017 continues to
have all information and details as "zero", and

consequently, the entry about

discharging tax liability of August, 2017 in

the petitioner's electronic

liability register as required under rule 88(2) of
the CGST Rules is still not
made.

2.17
In this view of the matter, the petitioner had been continuously
approaching
all the responsible officers of Ahmedabad-North

Commissionerate, and also the

higher officers like the Chairman of the

Central Board of Indirect Taxes and

Customs as well as the Assistant
Director in charge of the System of the common
portal. The petitioner has

submitted letters and representations in writing to

the Chief Commissioner

of Ahmedabad Zone, the Assistant Director of DGGSTI, the

Deputy
Commissioner of CGST in charge of the petitioner's factory, the Nodal

Officer in charge of the Nodal Office for sorting out system related
problems,
the Assistant Commissioner in charge of Systems at

Gandhinagar, the Member of

the Board at New Delhi etc.; and in all,

twenty three request letters and

representations have been made by the
petitioner in writing from 21.9.2017 to
1.3.2019. However, the response

received by the petitioner till the first week

of March, 2019 was only by

way of three letters. A letter dated 21.8.2018 has

been received by the
petitioner from the Assistant Commissioner (System)
advising the

petitioner to follow up the matter with the jurisdictional

Commissioner who

is the Nodal Officer. A letter dated 10.9.2018 has been

received by the
petitioner from the Joint Commissioner requesting the
Commissioner of

CGST and Central Excise, Ahmedabad-North for information about

action

taken on the petitioner's representations; and a letter dated 28.10.2018

(wrongly shown as dated 28.8.2018) from the Deputy Commissioner in

charge of
the petitioner's factory informing the petitioner that the matter
stands
referred to the higher formation.

2.18
It is the case of the petitioner that the jurisdictional Deputy
Commissioner
has, vide the above letter dated 28.10.2018, advised the

petitioner to follow
the instructions/guidelines mentioned in paragraph 3 of

Circular dated
29.12.2017 (Annexure-"F" to the petition). But it is clarified
by the
Government of India at paragraph 3 of the circular that the GST

Council has
decided to keep in abeyance the scheme of correction /

amendment of errors in
GSTR-3B at the time of filing GSTR-2 and GSTR-3.
Consequently, though advised
by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner

to do so, the petitioner could not

have followed the instructions/guidelines

mentioned in paragraph 3 of this

circular. As a result of the petitioner's
follow up for about eighteen months,
now a decision has been

communicated with the approval of the Principal

Commissioner,

Ahmedabad-North, informing the petitioner that the Senior Vice

President,
GSTN has informed that functionality of modifying GSTR-3B is not

available because there is no such process defined under law. The

petitioner is
advised to follow the instructions/guidelines mentioned in

paragraph 3 of the
Circular dated 29.12.2017. On enquiry by the

petitioner as to in what manner

instructions/guideline mentioned in
paragraph 3 of the above referred Circular
should be followed, the

petitioner has been informed by the Officers that the

petitioner's case

would fall under Common Error-I of Annexure to the above

Circular, and as
clarified for cases of "Liability was under reported", the
petitioner should

pay the liability of tax with interest.

 
2.19
In the aforesaid factual background, the situation that still prevails is

that
a formal entry in the petitioner's electronic liability register for

discharging tax liability of August, 2017 is still not made in the system
though the petitioner had paid the entire tax liability of August, 2017 by

way
of cash payment aggregating to Rs.114.51 crores (rounded off) and
that of
Rs.14.12 crores (rounded off) from legally availed ITC. Though true

and full
information about the tax liability and also its payment in respect

of August,
2017 stands reflected in the return furnished in Form GSTR-1,
the other return
in Form GSTR-3B shows zero liability and also nothing

about discharging the

actual tax liability of August, 2017, the Unique

Identification Number relating

to discharge of such tax liability in August,
2017 is still not made in the
System, that is, on the common portal, in

respect of the petitioner's

electronic liability register. It is the case of the

petitioner that despite

having paid the entire tax liability of August, 2017
within the time limit
prescribed under law, as the petitioner is still

considered as a defaulter as
regards tax liability of August, 2017 exposing

the petitioner to several

consequences and there is no proper response
from the respondents, the
petitioner has approached this court seeking

the reliefs noted hereinabove.

 
3.
During the pendency of the present petition, the petitioner had filed an

application being Civil Application No.1 of 2019 in the captioned writ

petition, praying that the petitioner be permitted to file manually GSTR-3B

for
August, 2017 with the correct and true details and the respondents be

directed
to accept and acknowledge such GSTR-3B manually filed by the
petitioner for
August, 2017. The petitioner further sought a direction to

the respondents to
give effect to the details contained in GSTR-3B for

August 2017 filed manually

and to indicate discharge of the petitioner's
GST liability for August 2017 in
the electronic liability register as

contemplated under rule 88(2) of the CGST

Rules, 2017.

 
4.
Vide order dated 7.5.2019, the application was allowed by permitting

the
petitioner to file GSTR-3B for August, 2017 manually, with correct and
true
details and the respondents were directed to accept and acknowledge

such
GSTR-3B manually filed by the petitioner for August, 2017.
 

5.
Pursuant to the above order, the respondents, in an affidavit dated

3.9.2019,
had taken a stand that in the interest of smooth functioning of
GST, it is
desirable and necessary that manual filing is not permitted.

However,
subsequently the learned senior standing counsel for the

respondents had
submitted before the court that in the case of the
petitioner, while filing
GSTR-3B for September, 2019 in October, 2019, the

tax amount of August, 2017

may also be added and thereupon the details

submitted in electronic GSTR-3B shall

be accepted by the portal. The
learned senior standing counsel also submitted
that only the principal

amount of tax liability of August, 2017 may be declared

in such return,

and not the liability of interest, subject to the outcome of

the petition.
Accordingly, it appears that the petitioner was permitted to file
FORM

GSTR-3B for September, 2019 with taxes payable for August, 2017 and

the
same has been accepted by the system and, accordingly, the amount
of tax
payable for August, 2017, which was lying with the designated bank

has now been

credited to the Government account and the taxes payable
are now shown as nil.

6.
In the light of the above events, the principal grievance voiced in the
petition, therefore, no longer survives. However, the issue regarding

liability
to pay interest for eighteen months from 21.9.2017 to October

2019 at a
substantially high rate of 18% per annum still remains to be
addressed.

7.
Mr. Paresh Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner invited the
attention of
the court to the averments made in the memorandum of

petition, to point out

that it is only after issuing the letter dated 7.3.2019,

on the petitioner's
inquiry, that the respondents informed the petitioner
that its case would fall
in the appropriate table set out in Circular

No.26/26/2017- GST dated

29.12.2017. Reference was made to paragraph
7 of the affidavit-in-reply filed
on behalf of the respondents No.1, 2, 3 and

4, to point out that it is admitted

therein that the petitioner was under a

bona fide belief that since the issue

would be resolved after filing GSTR-1
it did not enter into any e-mail or
correspondence with any other

authority. Referring to the

affidavit-in-rejoinder filed by the petitioner in

response to the
affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it was
pointed out that
in paragraph 5 thereof, it has been specifically averred by

the petitioner that

it was never informed in the past for paying tax amount

with interest for

August, 2017; and that the petitioner might have done
that if such advice had
been given in the past. Reference was made to the

press releases, etc. for the

glitches in the network delaying GST filing, to

point out that the same also

showed that there were reports of returns
showing zero figures. It was
submitted that despite the aforesaid

categorical averments made in the

affidavit-in-rejoinder as well as the

aforesaid facts being pointed out in the

further affidavit filed on behalf of
the respondents, there is no denial or
dispute in respect of the aforesaid

facts. It was submitted that even at the

time when the civil application
was filed by the petitioners praying to be
permitted to file the GSTR

manually, which came to be decided on 7.5.2019, no

suggestion or

submission was made on behalf of the respondents for filing such

return
with only the principal amount of tax without showing interest for the

intervening period for releasing the amount lying in the designated bank.

It
was pointed out that such suggestion was made by the respondents
only on the
16th or 17th of October, 2019 and the suggestion was

implemented by the
petitioner on 20th October, 2019. It was pointed out

that accordingly, the

amount of Rs.114.51 crores and ITC of Rs.14.12
crores lying with the designated
bank all along from 19.9.2017 has not

been accepted as payment of tax for

August, 2017. It was submitted that

this could have been done in September,

2017 if the respondents had not
given the petitioner to understand that the
error would be corrected in

view of the Circular dated 1.9.2017. It was pointed

out that even during
the course of hearing of the application/petition also,
the respondents had

submitted that the petitioner was asked to pay tax with

interest only in

March, 2019 after issuing the letter dated 7.3.2019, which was
about
eighteen months, after creating an impression which gave rise to a bona

fide belief on the part of the petitioner that the issue would be sorted out

in
due course. It was submitted that the petitioner had duly filed the
return for
the month of August, 2017 and had also deposited that tax

payable for such

period; however, on account of glitches in the system

such amount could not be

credited to the Government account. It was
submitted that the petitioner had
thereafter immediately approached the

respondent authorities for resolving the

issue; however it was on account

of the default on the part of the respondent

authorities that the error
could be corrected only in October, 2019. It was
submitted that on account

of default on the part of the respondents, the

petitioner should not be

saddled with the liability of paying excessive

interest at the rate of 18%
for the intervening period between the date of
filing of the return and the

filing of form GSTR-3B in October, 2019.

 

8.
This court has also heard Mr. Nirzar Desai, learned senior standing

counsel for
the respondents, who has reiterated the averments made in
the affidavit in
reply filed on behalf of the respondents.

9.
From the facts noted hereinabove, it is apparent that the petitioner had
uploaded the return for August, 2017 within the period provided therefor.

The
petitioner paid an amount aggregating to Rs.114,51,11,746/- in cash

towards the
tax liability and also made payment of Rs.14,12,35,762/- in
the credit ledger
as ITC utilisation; however the same was not entered in

the petitioner's
electronic liability register as provided under rule 88(2) of

the CGST Rules.

The situation therefore, is that though the petitioner had
discharged the tax
liability aggregating Rs 128.63 crores (rounded off),

such liability was not

shown as discharged in the electronic liability register
only on account of
glitches and crashing of the system on 20th and 21st

September, 2017.
Consequently, despite the fact that the petitioner had

discharged the tax

liability in time, it was still treated as a defaulter
because all the figures
in GSTR- 3B for August 2017 are zeros owing to

system failure.

 
10.
As noticed earlier, immediately thereafter, the petitioner had contacted

the
respondent authorities and had made attempts to do whatever, it was

told.
However, it was only by the communication dated 7.3.2019, that the
petitioner
was informed that the Central Board of Excise and Customs had

issued Circular
No. 26/26/2017-GST dated 29.12.2017 wherein it has

been specified that the tax

payer may adjust the amount not paid or short
paid or excess paid in the
GSTR-3B of the previous month in the return of

the following tax period. It was

further stated that the petitioner was

already requested to follow the

instruction/guideline mentioned in
paragraph 3 of Circular No.26/26/2017 dated
29.12.2017 by the Deputy

Commissioner vide their office letter dated

28.10.2018.
 

11.
In terms of the above Circular No.26/26/2017-GST dated 29.12.2017,

the
petitioner was required to report the additional liability in the return of
the
next month and pay tax with interest. In effect and substance,

therefore, the
petitioner was required to pay interest at the rate of 18%

for a period of
eighteen months on the tax liability which it had already
discharged on time, without
there being any default on its part.

12.
From the facts as emerging from the record, it is manifest that despite
the
fact that the petitioner had approached them at the earliest point of

time, the
respondent authorities maintained silence for a considerable

period of time and

did not provide remedial measures till directed by this
court. The errors in
uploading the return were not on account of any fault

on the part of the

petitioner but on account of error in the system. In
these circumstances, it
would be unreasonable and inequitable on the part

of the respondents to saddle

the petitioner with interest on the amount of

tax payable for August 2017,

despite the fact that the petitioner had
discharged its tax liability for such
period well within time.

13.
The respondents, in paragraph 19 of their affidavit-inreply, have
submitted
that CIN is generated after deposit of money by the petitioner

for the purpose

of payment of tax. CIN is generated by the authorised

banks/ Reserve Bank of

India (RBI) when payment is actually received by
such authorised banks or RBI,
which then is seen as credit balance in the

electronic cash ledger of the

petitioner. In response to such submission

made on behalf of the respondents,

the learned advocate for the petitioner
invited the attention of the court to
the averments made in paragraphs 5.4

and 5.5 of the petition, wherein it has

been stated that when any payment

is made by an assessee by internet banking, a

number for the challan for
making payment is generated, which is known as
Challan Portal

Identification Number (CPIN). For two challans dated 19.9.2017,

through
which the petitioner has paid a total sum of Rs.114.51 crores (rounded

off), such CPINs have been generated on the common portal, and such

numbers
appear on the challans with other details. CPIN for payment of
taxes by the
petitioner are 17092400195007 and 17092400195744. On

successful credit of the

amount to the concerned Government account

maintained in the authorised bank, a

Challan Identification Number is
generated by the collecting bank, and the same
is indicated in the challan

as laid down under subrule (6) of rule 87 of the

CGST Rules. In the

petitioner's case, such CINs have been generated, and such

Challan
Identification Numbers have been recorded on the challans also, which
are

HDFC17092400195007 and HDFC17092400195744. These facts have not

been
disputed by the respondents. Thus, it is evident that the amount in
 question
had actually been deposited by the petitioner on 19.9.2017 for

the purpose of
payment of tax and was received in the bank designated by
the respondents.
Moreover, it is an admitted fact that Rs.114.51 crores

(rounded off) paid in

the designated bank on 19.9.2017 and also input tax

credit of Rs.14,12,35,762/-
debited on 19.9.2017 have been lying to the
credit of the GST Department, and
the petitioner has not utilised this sum

aggregating to Rs.128.63 crores

(rounded off) for discharging any other

tax liability.
 

14.
Thus, the petitioner had duly discharged the tax liability of August,

2017
within the period prescribed therefor; however, it was only on
account of
technical glitches in the System that the amount of tax paid by

the petitioner
for August 2017 had not been credited to the Government

account. Hence, the

interests of justice would best be served if the
declaration submitted by the
petitioner in October, 2019 along with the

return of September, 2019 is treated

as discharge of the petitioner's tax

liability of August, 2017 within the

period stipulated under the GST laws.
Consequently, the petitioner would not be
liable to pay any interest on

such tax amount for the period from 21.9.2017 to

October, 2019.
 

15.
In the light of the above discussion, the petition succeeds and is,

accordingly, allowed. It is held that the declaration submitted by the

petitioner in October, 2019 along with the return of September, 2019 shall

be
treated as the petitioner having discharged its tax liability of August,

2017
within the period stipulated under the GST laws. The petitioner shall
not be
liable to pay any interest on such tax amount for the period from

21.9.2017 to
October, 2019. Rule is made absolute accordingly, with no

order as to costs."
 

9. We are of
the view that the respondents cannot raise their hands in despair

saying that
it is not possible to correct or take care of the technical glitches. The
writ
applicant herein has been running from pillar to post requesting the

respondents to provide a solution and take care of the technical error and
glitch
that occurred as regards furnishing the GSTR - 6 return for recording
and

distributing the ISD credit of Rs.20,52,989/-. As usual, there is no

response at

the end of the GSTN. The writ applicant is not allowed to

distribute the ISD
credit of Rs.20,52,989/- as the same has not been recorded,
reported and

declared in the GSTR - 6 return.

 
10. Mr.
Tripathi is right in his submission that the credit is a tax paid by the

registered person on input transactions and therefore, the credit of such tax

already paid to the credit of the Central Government is a vested right of the
person. Such vested right cannot be defeated on account of any irregularity in

the system evolved by the Government.

 
11. For all
the aforegoing reasons, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.

The
respondents are directed to allow the writ applicant to furnish manually the

GSTR - 6 return with details of the ISD credit of Rs.20,52,989/- and also
permit
distribution of such credit to the constituents of the writ applicant.
Let this entire

exercise be undertaken within a period of six weeks from the

date of the receipt
of writ of this order.

 
DISCLAIMER: Though all efforts have
been made to reproduce the order accurately and correctly however
the access,
usage and circulation is subject to the condition that publisher is not
responsible/liable for any

loss or damage caused to anyone due to any

mistake/error/omissions.