2018 Taxo.online 157

W.P.(C) 9575/2017 dated 15.05.2018





Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017

39/13/2018-GST dated 03.04.2018

Sanjiv Khanna, Justice & Chander Shekhar, Justice


High Court


Represented by: –

Petitioner: – Mr. Puneet Agrawal, Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Aggrawal, Mr. Puneet Rai, Mr.Purvi Sinha and Mr. Naveen Madan, Advs.

Respondent: – Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Mr. Abhigyan Siddhant and Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Adv. for UOI/R-1 Mr. Satyakam, Standing Counsel with Ms. Manpreet, L.A., DTT, for R-2 & R-3

Ms. Nidhi Mohan Parashar and Mr. Umang Kumar Singh, Advs. for R-4 Ms. Nitya Sharma, Adv. for GST Council

Order: –

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the status report dated 07.05.2018 filed by the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) submits that the grievance mechanism set up in terms of Circular No. 39/13/2018-GST dated 03.04.2018 ineffective for the normal reply given is that the problem has been resolved though in fact the problem persists. The reply furnished should be effective and must disclose the method and manner in which the issue has been resolved. Some specific instances with reference to typical reply have been highlighted.

Second submission made by the petitioner relates to non credit/payments of electronic cash ledger.

Third issue highlighted by the petitioner is that Central and State Acts permit rectification of mistakes. However, GSTN portal does not permit rectification of a return already filed. Rectification is to be made in the subsequent return. Nevertheless authorities are issuing notices to the assessees whenever rectification is made, treating rectification as a discrepancy between GSTR1 and GSTR3B. A large number of assessees are facing this problem.

The respondents would file response to the said assertions and allegations, in the form of status report. Prima facie we find merit in the submission that reply under the grievance mechanism should specifically deals with the issue raised and indicates the manner in which the same has been resolved and addressed.

The Ld. Counsel for the respondent states that petitioner in spite of repeated e-mails have failed to furnish information and details. Our attention is drawn to Annexure-7 to the status report. The petitioners must immediately respond to Annexure-7 by sending e-mails within 7 days, on each issue or else it will be taken that the issue has been resolved and settled.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner states that there is failure to issue of refunds including provisional refund and statutory time limits are not being adhered to by authorities. He says that petitioner will be filing a separate wit petition on the said aspects. Relist on 3rd August, 2018

Free Trial

Are you looking for the Latest Rules, Notifications, and Case Laws?

Book your 7 days free trial

Book Now