W.P. (C) 13151/2019
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
The petitioner periodically filed Income Tax returns by way of structure available in India prior to 1st July 2017. For the period ending 30 th June 2017, the closing balance of credits available for carry forward was Rs 6, 52, 58,081. From 1 st July 2017 GST was enacted and in order to obtain the credit in the electronic credit ledger under the GST Laws, on 27th August 2017 petitioner had filed the form ‘GST TRAN-I’ for the same. However, only 1,01,24,382 was reflected on the common GST portal aggrieved by which petitioner brought the same to the notice of respondents and he was asked to fill the above form again but then also amount was not credited. Then petitioner also launched a complaint with GST Help desk. Then further representation was made to the Assistant Commissioner of CGST and also to Principle Commissioner of CGST, Pune Commissionerate. Then Respondents also issued a trade notice to ITGRC (IT grievance redressal committee). When all the efforts made failed, a writ petition was filed with the HC of Bombay which was later on disposed of directing the petitioner to file a representation before concerned authorities in terms of the 32nd GST council meeting. Then on 12th july 2019 the case of petitioner was rejected by ITGRC without giving any reasons and the prospect and possibility of a resolution was finally put to rest and Writ Petition was filed in the SC under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The restriction that prevents the petitioner from taking the credit by revising the return is violative of Article 14. The SC was also of the view that this case demonstrates how the Tax department has failed miserably fallen short of the expectations. The injustice and prejudice caused to the petitioner is profound and its disillusionment and despair is evident. In this case it’s a complete lack of understanding and fairness on the part of Tax Department. It’s a fact that respondents have done nothing to solve the problems faced by the petitioner and if they genuinely ever had the intentions to solve the issue, then the confidence of the Tax Payers could have been gained by the department and such matters would not reach the court.
Writ Petition filed by the petitioner was allowed and a writ mandamus was issued to the respondents to either open the online portal so as to enable the petitioner to file revised declaration TRAN-I electronically or to accept it manually.
Companies act 1956, Central Sales Tax Act 1956, Section 33 of Rajasthan value added tax act 2013.
Section 10(1)(d) of industrial Disputes Acts, 1947