9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 171 - HC - GSTGST portal issues - Claim of refund / provisional refund - Grievance mechanism set up in terms of Circular No. 39/13/2018-GST dated 03.04.2018 - the grievance is claimed to be ineffective for the normal reply given is that the problem has been resolved though in fact the problem persists - non credit/payments of electronic cash ledger - rectification of mistake by GSTN portal Revenue stated 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. Held that - 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. - Matter to be relisted again on 3-8-2018
Issues involved:
1. Ineffectiveness of grievance mechanism set up by GSTN. 2. Non-credit/payments of electronic cash ledger. 3. Discrepancy in rectification process between Central and State Acts and GSTN portal. Issue 1: Ineffectiveness of grievance mechanism set up by GSTN The petitioner highlighted that the grievance mechanism set up by GSTN, as per Circular No. 39/13/2018-GST, was ineffective. The petitioner argued that the replies received through the mechanism were not disclosing the method and manner in which the issues were resolved, leading to persisting problems despite claims of resolution. Specific instances were pointed out where the typical replies did not effectively address the underlying issues. The court acknowledged the merit in the petitioner's submission, emphasizing that the replies under the grievance mechanism should precisely deal with the raised issues and demonstrate how they have been resolved. Issue 2: Non-credit/payments of electronic cash ledger Another issue raised by the petitioner was regarding the non-credit or payments related to the electronic cash ledger. The specifics of this issue were not elaborated in the summary provided, but it was highlighted as a concern brought forward by the petitioner. Issue 3: Discrepancy in rectification process The petitioner pointed out a discrepancy between the rectification processes allowed by the Central and State Acts and the restrictions on rectification imposed by the GSTN portal. While the Central and State Acts permitted rectification of mistakes, the GSTN portal did not allow rectification of a return once filed, requiring rectifications to be made in subsequent returns. This led to authorities issuing notices to assesses for discrepancies between GSTR1 and GSTR3B whenever rectifications were made. The petitioner argued that this approach caused problems for a large number of assesses. The court noted this issue and directed the respondents to file a response to the assertions and allegations made by the petitioner in the form of a status report. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues related to the ineffectiveness of the grievance mechanism established by GSTN, non-credit/payments of electronic cash ledger, and the discrepancy in the rectification process between the Central and State Acts and the GSTN portal. The court acknowledged the merit in the petitioner's submissions and directed the respondents to provide detailed responses to the highlighted issues. The case was scheduled for a re-listing on a specific date to monitor the progress and responses from both parties.
|
