JUDGMENT : ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J. The petitioner was a registered dealer under the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act and upon introduction of the CGST/KSGST Acts, with effect from 01.07.2017, the petitioner migrated to GST by obtaining a registration under the said Act as the registered taxpayer. The dispute in this writ petition pertains to the denial of Input Tax Credit, that was available to the petitioner pertaining to the pre-GST period; to be precise, for the period from April 2017 to June 2017. Section 140 of the CGST Act contemplates the transitional arrangements for the claim of Input Tax Credit, and Sub Section (1) of Section 140 provides that, a registered person, other than a person opting to pay tax under section 10, shall be entitled to take, in his electronic credit ledger, the amount of CENVAT credit of eligible duties carried forward in the return relating to the period ending with the day immediately preceding the appointed day, furnished by him in such manner as may be prescribed. 2. According to the petitioner, as the petitioner was having Input Tax Credit in respect of the transactions pertaining to the period referred to above, which were during pre-GST period, they were entitled to carry forward the said credit to the GST regime by virtue of Sub Section (1) of Section 140 of the CGST Act. The initial period fixed for claiming the benefit of carry forward as contemplated under the transitional provisions in Section 140 was up to 27.12.2017. However, later, as per the direction issued by the Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India v. M/S Filco Trade Centre Private Limited [S.L.P.(C) No.32709 and 32710 of 2018], the time limit was extended up to 30.11.2022 for all the taxpayers. The petitioner submitted Ext.P7, Form GST TRAN-1, which is the prescribed form for submitting the benefit of carry forward under Section 140 of the Act, on 30.11.2022, the last date on which the same ought to have been submitted. According to the petitioner, the application could not be successfully uploaded, as certain errors were shown in the portal. Accordingly, the petitioner raised a grievance on 01.12.2022, bearing Ticket No.G-202212019767112. The petitioner also submitted Ext.P9, before the 6 th respondent, highlighting this aspect as well. According to the petitioner, the application could not be successfully uploaded, as certain errors were shown in the portal. Accordingly, the petitioner raised a grievance on 01.12.2022, bearing Ticket No.G-202212019767112. The petitioner also submitted Ext.P9, before the 6 th respondent, highlighting this aspect as well. Ext.P10 is the response received from the Help Desk, where the reply was in the manner as follows: “We have tried filing our TRAN-1 form for receiving transitional credit during pre-gst regime as per latest Supreme Court guidelines before 30.11.2022. However, during the filling of form Online, we encountered an error in table 7(b) regarding date of booking invoices. All our invoices were booked before 01.07.2017. However the excel utility did not accepted the date and we could not validate our form for filing. We tried all means.” 3. Thus, as the grievance highlighted by the petitioner with regard to the rejection of application due to technical error, was not addressed, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “(i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction of like nature to the Respondents, directing the respondents to resolve the technical glitch raised by the petitioner through Ext.P9 as promised in Ext.P10 and allow the petitioner the transitional Input tax credit on opening stock, as available on the opening day of GST laws (Closing stock as on 30-06- 2017), to which the petitioner is legally entitled to under CGST and the SGST Acts, through the Electronic Credit Ledger and, if necessary, by making necessary arrangements on the web portal; (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction of like nature to the Respondents, directing the respondents to to permit the manual filing of TRAN-1 and supporting documents and to allow transitional credit to the petitioner based on such documents; (iii) issue such other order(s), direction(s), writs) or any other relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice;” 4. A statement has been submitted by the respondent in response to the averments contained in the writ petition. A statement has been submitted by the respondent in response to the averments contained in the writ petition. In paragraph 3 of the said statement, it is averred as follows: “In this case the taxpayer had logged in to GST Portal on 30-11- 2022 at 19:56 pm from IP Address: 103.161.55.236 and saved data in TRAN-1 Form in various table except table 7(b), which needs to be filled in accordance with Section 140(5) of CGST Act 2017. For entering details in table 7(b) the tax payer used offline tool and has got a validation error “date on which entered in the recipient’s books of account should be after 01-07-2017”. This is a valid error in terms of Section 140(5) of CGST Act, 2017 as the tax payer was supposed to enter the date which should be after 01st July 2017 in the column “date on which entered in the recipient’s books of account”. Hence, corrective measure would have been to enter valid dates then click on the validate button and proceed with the process mentioned above for filing of TRAN-1 Form. Since, the tax payer did not rectify the aforesaid valid error, he was not able to upload table 7(b) data on GST portal. Therefore, no record of table 7(b) are present in the system, as alleged by the Petitioner/taxpayer.” 5. Thus, it was contended by the respondents that, even though the petitioner was able to log on to the GST portal without facing any technical issues, the application could not be uploaded, as there was a valid error message, as referred to above. It was reiterated that, it was not because of any technical issues of the GST portal, but it was due to the mistake on the part of the petitioner, in entering the details of the benefits claimed by it, in the proper column. Thus, they sought to dismiss the writ petition. 6. I have heard Sri.Rahul A., the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.P.R.Sreejith, the learned standing counsel for the respondents. 7. Thus, they sought to dismiss the writ petition. 6. I have heard Sri.Rahul A., the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.P.R.Sreejith, the learned standing counsel for the respondents. 7. When the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the contentions raised in the writ petition with regard to the technical glitches in the portal, which resulted in denial of opportunity to the petitioner to avail the benefit of Section 140, the learned standing counsel for the respondents would oppose the same, by contending that, it was not due to any technical glitches in the portal or any mistake on the part of the respondents. It is the specific case of the learned standing counsel that, it was due to the mistake committed by the petitioner itself. It was pointed out that, even though the benefits claimed by the petitioner was coming within the purview of Section 140(1), the details of the same were entered into, in the column for the benefits under clause (5) of Section 140. In these circumstances, the error, as highlighted in Ext.P8, has occurred and the application submitted by the petitioner could not be uploaded. The learned standing counsel also vehemently contended that, as far as the petitioner is concerned, despite the fact that, the period stood extended as per the orders passed by the Honourable Supreme Court up to 30.11.2022, as against the original date of 27.12.2017, he attempted to login and to submit the TRAN-1 application, only at the last moment, i.e., at 19.56 hours of 30.11.2022. Therefore, it was pointed out that, since the reason for the rejection of the TRAN-1 Form submitted by the petitioner was only due to the mistake committed by the petitioner itself, under any circumstances, no further opportunity can be granted to the petitioner at this point of time. 8. I have carefully gone through the records. Of course, it is true that, the reasons for not accepting Ext.P7 TRAN-1 form submitted by the petitioner, was not attributable to the portal or to the respondents. As rightly pointed out by the learned standing counsel for the respondents, the same was a mistake on the part of the petitioner, in entering the necessary details in a wrong column. Therefore, Ext.P8 error occurred and the application was rejected. As rightly pointed out by the learned standing counsel for the respondents, the same was a mistake on the part of the petitioner, in entering the necessary details in a wrong column. Therefore, Ext.P8 error occurred and the application was rejected. However, the question that arises here is whether, merely because of an error on the part of the petitioner, the benefits which the petitioner was otherwise entitled to, could be denied. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the decision rendered by this Court in M/S.G & C Infra Innovations v. Union of India [WP (C) No. 14096 of 2019], wherein, an identical situation arose, with a subtle variation that the petitioner had uploaded the GST TRAN-1 Form on 01.09.2017, when the prescribed cut-off date for filing the same was 27.12.2017. In the said decision, permission was granted to the petitioner therein. The said decision rendered by the learned Single Bench was taken in appeal, by the Department in Union of India v. M/S.G & C Infra Innovations [W.A. NO.608 of 2022 ] and it was disposed of, in tune with the judgment of the Apex Court in M/S Filco Trade Centre Private Limited (Supra), taking note of the fact that the cut off date was extended by the Honourable Supreme Court. In addition to the aforesaid decision of this Court , the judgments rendered by the Delhi High Court in cases involving identical facts also relevant. These includes, M/s Blue Bird Pure Pvt. Limited v. Union of India [2019 SCC OnLine Del 9250], Bhargava Motors vs. Union of India [W.P.(C) 1280/2019]; Kusum Enterprises Pvt. Limited vs. Union of India [W.P.(C) 7423/2019]. 9. Moreover, in Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs v. Aberdare Technologies Private Limited & Ors. [SLP(C) No.6332 of 2025], the Honourable Supreme Court, while dealing with a similar issue of a human error, in the matter of claiming input tax credit, the following observations were made: “The petitioner, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, must re-examine the provisions/timelines fixed for correcting the bona fide errors. Time lines should be realist as lapse/defect invariably is realized when input tax credit is denied to the purchaser when benefit of tax paid is denied. Purchaser is not at fault, having paid the tax amount. He suffers because of he is denied benefit of tax paid by him. Consequently, he has to make double payment. Time lines should be realist as lapse/defect invariably is realized when input tax credit is denied to the purchaser when benefit of tax paid is denied. Purchaser is not at fault, having paid the tax amount. He suffers because of he is denied benefit of tax paid by him. Consequently, he has to make double payment. Human errors and mistakes are normal, and errors are also made by the Revenue. Right to correct mistakes in the nature of clerical or arithmetical error is a right that flows from right to do business and should not be denied unless there is a good justification and reason to deny benefit of correction. Software limitation itself cannot be a good justification, as software are meant ease compliance and can be configured. Therefore, we exercise our discretion and dismiss the special leave petition.” 10. On carefully going through the records, I find that the circumstances that are existing in this case, are similar to that of the case dealt with by the Honourable Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision. Of course, it is true that, as rightly pointed out by the learned standing counsel for the respondents, as the facilities for uploading the TRAN-1 were made in the portal only for that particular period, being a procedure that was time-bound, such facilities are no longer available in the portal. Therefore, it is contended that the same would cause serious difficulties to the Department in entertaining the claim of the petitioner and granting the benefits as envisaged under Section 140, at this point of time, since more that two and half years have elapsed, after the last date fixed by the Honourable Supreme Court. The learned standing counsel also highlighted the difficulties in accepting such application in the web portal due to technical reasons. 11. However, this issue was also taken note of by the Honourable Supreme Court, in the decision in Aberdare Technologies Private Limited & Ors (supra), and it was observed that, the software limitations itself, cannot be a justification to deny such reliefs, as the software is meant to ease compliance and can be configured. In the light of the aforesaid observations, I am of the view that, those technical difficulties by itself cannot be a reason to reject the contentions raised by the petitioner. 12. In the light of the aforesaid observations, I am of the view that, those technical difficulties by itself cannot be a reason to reject the contentions raised by the petitioner. 12. While considering this issue, it is also to be noted that, this is not a case in which, any evasion of tax has occurred. The petitioner was making an attempt to claim a benefit which it was entitled to, as per the statute. In a decision rendered by the Delhi High Court A.B. Pal Electricals v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No. 6537/2019) in Para 8, it was observed that, ” We may further add that the credit standing in favour of an assessee is “property” and the assessee could not be deprived of the said property save by authority of law in terms of Article 300 (A) of the Constitution of India. There is no law brought to our notice which extinguishes the said right to property of the assessee in the credit standing in their favour”. In this case, it is an admitted position that, the attempt of the petitioner was within the time stipulated for submission of the said application. The fact that, the said attempt was made on the last date or the last hours fixed for the same, by itself cannot be a reason to deny the relief sought by the petitioner. When a time limit is fixed by the Honourable Supreme Court or by the statute, every tax payer is entitled to get the full benefits of the said time limit and he would be eligible to submit the application till the last moment of the time limit fixed. Therefore, since it is an admitted position, as per the statement submitted by the respondents that, the petitioner attempted to submit Ext.P7 application on 30.11.2022 at 19.56 hours, which was within the date stipulated by the Honourable Supreme Court, I am of the view that, an appropriate opportunity has to be granted to the petitioner to claim the said benefits, after curing the defects in the application. While taking this view, I have also considered the fact that, the writ petition was filed by the petitioner on 23.02.2023, within a reasonable time from the last date of submitting the application, which was on 30.11.2022. As discussed above, observations made by the Honourable Supreme Court, fortifies the view taken by this Court. While taking this view, I have also considered the fact that, the writ petition was filed by the petitioner on 23.02.2023, within a reasonable time from the last date of submitting the application, which was on 30.11.2022. As discussed above, observations made by the Honourable Supreme Court, fortifies the view taken by this Court. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to ensure that the necessary facilities are made to enable the petitioner to upload the TRAN-1 Form with correct entries, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In case, the same is submitted within three weeks of extending the said facilities by the respondents, it shall be considered by the competent among the respondents, as if, the same was submitted within the statutory time limit contemplated under the Act, as extended by the Honourable Supreme Court.