Section 140 of the CGST Act, 2017 –– Transitional Credit ––—- The petitioner challenged the Impugned Order dated 28.05.2020, whereby the petitioner's request for refund of the ITC could not be successfully transitioned as the petitioner committed a mistake while uploading the TRAN-1 Form in time. By mistake the petitioner committed typographical error by claiming credit against inputs and capital goods. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had sent a representation for refund of the amount as he is unable to utilize the credit under the new regime. The court observed that the credit which was earned by a registered dealer under the Act are indefeasible in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise, Pune and others v Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. and others, (1999) 7 SCC 448, has held that credit availed under the provisions of the erstwhile Central Excise Act, 1944 and Central Excise Rules, 1944 are indefeasible and are intended to reduce the cascading effect of the tax to benefit the consumers. If the system does not facilitate rectification of mistakes in TRAN-1, such input tax credit has to be refunded back as retention of such amount by the department would be contrary to Article 265 of the Constitution of India. It would amount to collection of tax without authority of law.

Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court directed the respondents to either allow the rectification of TRAN-1 or in the alternative accept manual filling of TRAN-1 or make a suitable credit entry in the Electronic Cash Register, within a period of ninety days.