2018 (9) TMI 686 - HC - GST

Registration of petitioner under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Act, 2017 - migration to GST Regime - Held that - There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner is a registered dealer previously under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. However, after introduction of GST and during the process of migration into CGST, it appears that some mistake or short fall of information has crept in and that the petitioner did not make any efforts to rectify the same during the process of on-line migration. Now, as it is stated by the respondents 1 and 3 that such lapse on the part of the petitioner will also be considered by the concerned Nodal Officer, it is for the petitioner to utilise such opportunity and file such application with necessary details without loss of further time - The petitioner is directed to make an application with necessary details before the concerned Nodal Officer on or before 10.08.2018 - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Migration of dealer registration under earlier enactments to CGST Act, 2017.
2. Impugned communication closing migration functionality.
3. Petitioner's failure to rectify information during online migration.
4. Directions to approach Nodal Officer for migration completion.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The petitioner, a manufacturer and reseller of granites and tiles, sought permanent registration under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Act, 2017 after being previously registered under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The transition to CGST Act, 2017 required existing dealers to migrate their registration.

Issue 2: The petitioner faced a challenge when the migration functionality through FORM GST REG-26 was closed, leading to the need for new registration under the GST Act. This prompted the filing of a writ petition to quash the impugned communication and seek permanent registration. An interim order was granted to prevent actions against the petitioner as an unregistered dealer.

Issue 3: The court noted a lapse in the petitioner's migration process, where necessary rectifications were not made online. However, the respondents indicated that the petitioner could approach the Nodal Officer with required details for migration completion by a specified deadline.

Issue 4: The judgment directed the petitioner to submit an application with necessary details to the Nodal Officer by a given date. Upon receipt, the Nodal Officer was instructed to pass appropriate orders within three weeks. The interim protection granted by the court to prevent treating the petitioner as an unregistered dealer would continue until the Nodal Officer's decision. The case was disposed of with no costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.