Section 140 of the CGST Act, 2017 –– Transitional Credit ––The petitioner submitted that instead of making a proper entry against 7(a) of TRAN-1, the petitioner has made an entry in 7(d). Since there was a mistake, the petitioner had sent a representation to the respondent to permit the petitioner to make appropriate corrections. The petitioner had filed petition for directing the first respondent to dispose of the representation dated 07.12.2018 of the petitioner. The second respondent in turn referred the matter to the IT Grievance Redressal. The petitioner proceeded to withdraw the writ petition filed under a bonafide belief that the petitioner will be given the appropriate relief. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has sent several representations thereafter which has not evoked any response. He has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Blue Bird case law. The court observed that the technical problem arose at the time of initial implementations of GST which resulted in difficulties both for the Assessee and for the Department. The difficulty in amending the TRAN-1 is on account of the Architecture of the Web Portal which did not permitted the petitioner to make such amendments.

Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court directed the second respondent to take an independent decision by deputing a suitable officer to verify the petitioner ITC.  The technical problem in the GST Portal may be internally resolved by the respondents, within a period of six weeks.