Gujarat HC in the case of M/s Deepak Print Versus Union of India
M/s Deepak Print
Union of India
Facts of the Case:
By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs;
“(A) To admit and allow this petition;
(B) To issue any appropriate writ, order, or direction to the respondents permitting the petitioner to edit and upload actual entries in GSTR-3b for the Month of May 2019 which is at the submission stage;
(C ) To issue any appropriate writ, order, or direction to the respondents to modify the conditions and rules mentioned in Annexure-A by which a registered person can edit any error if occurred during submitting/offsetting the ITC and before the filing of the GSTR-3b return;
(D) Pending the hearing, admission, and/or final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the late fees of Rs.50/- daily being charged on the petitioner for non-filing of the said return for the said month i.e, May-2019 and also may be pleased to stay the late fees of Rs.50/- daily being charged for the subsequent due returns;
(E) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to wave the late fee charged for non-submission of the return for the month of May-2019 and further be pleased to wave the late fee being charged daily for the non-submission of returns due for the subsequent months by considering facts, circumstances, and genuineness of the case;
(F) To pass any such other and further orders as Your Lordships may deem just, fit in the interest of justice.”
Gujarat HC in the case of VKC Footsteps India Pvt. Ltd.
It appears that the Nodal Officer at Rajkot did not even bother to give a formal reply or respond to the representation preferred by the writ applicant, referred to above. The writ applicant did try his best to take up the matter with the concerned authority but ultimately had to come before this Court with the present writ application.
We take notice of the fact that in the last two years, the respondents have not even thought fit to file a formal reply opposing the writ application. Even, as on date, time was prayed for, which this Court declined having regard to the facts of the present case.
Gujarat HC in the case of Linde Engineering India Pvt. Ltd.
We have heard Mr. Raj Tanna, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant, and Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.
The short point for our consideration is whether the writ applicant is entitled to seek rectification of Form GSTR-3B for the month of May 2019.
Gujarat High Court in the case of Torrent Power Ltd.
The Decision of the Court:
In such circumstances, referred to above, we direct respondent No.4 that on the filing of the rectified Form GSTR-3B, it shall, within a period of two weeks, verify the claim made therein and give effect to the same once verified. As the writ applicant has been dragged into unnecessary litigation only on an account of the technicalities raised by the respondents, the writ applicant shall not be saddled with the liability of payment of late fees.
With the aforesaid directions, this writ application stands disposed of. We hope and trust that the writ applicant may not have to come back to this Court on any further technicalities that the Department is in the habit of raising, and thereby giving result to unnecessary litigation.