2018 Taxo.online 88
WP(C) 1834/2018 dated 29.03.2018
M/S SRKM STEEL PVT. LTD
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
2018
GST
Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, Justice
Interim
High Court
Gauhati
Represented by: –
Petitioner: – M L Gole
Respondent: – SC, Finance Deptt.
Order: –
Heard Ms. M.L. Gope, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. D. Saikia, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, State of Assam and Mr. S.C Keyal, learned ASGI appearing for the respondents in the Union of India.
The petitioner firm is assessable under the GST Act and for the purpose, they are required to file online mandatory returns in the form of GSTR-1 or if GSTR-1 is not possible for the present, by means of GSTR-3B. For the purpose of submitting the returns, late Gaurav Khetawat was the authorized signatory being one of the two Directors of the petitioner company. Late Gaurav Khetawat died on 21.08.2017. Upon his death, the petitioner firm made endeavour to file a return through the signature of another Director of the company, but it is stated that the online portal for the purpose of GST is not receiving such application forms. It is stated that whenever attempts are made to submit the online form through another signatory, the portal repeatedly kept asking for the digital signature of the earlier authorized signatory, who is no more.
In the aforesaid circumstance, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 18.12.2017 before the Superintendent of Taxes, Unit-D, C-8, Kar Bhawan, Ganeshguri, Guwahati highlighting the aforesaid inconvenience with a request for appropriate advice. As nothing was done, a further representation dated 08.01.2018 was also submitted.
A communication from the GST Help Desk has also been brought on record, by which the petitioner was informed that in the event the temporary authorized signatory is dead or is not traceable, the appropriate remedy would be to approach the Revisional Jurisdictional Tax Officer to set up a new authorized signatory in the GST portal.
From the said communication, it appears that the jurisdictional tax officer, who in the present case is said to be the Superintendent of Taxes is the appropriate authority to set up a new authorized signatory.
As representations had been submitted to the said authority, but no further action had been taken, Mr. D. Saikia, learned Senior Additional Advocate General prays that the matter be again listed on 06.04.2018 in order to obtain the information as to why the change had not been incorporated and if it is possible to do so for doing the needful.
Let a copy of this order be furnished to Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel assisting Mr. D. Saikia.
List this matter again on 06.04.2018.
