2019 (8) TMI 1134 - HC - GST

Amendment in respect of the registration application - GST Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT - The Nodal Officer is directed to consider the complaint / representation made by the petitioner and to take a decision in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner is at liberty to approach this Court again in case he is still aggrieved in the matter. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petition for amendment in registration application as per GST Rules, 2017.
2. Correction of bonafide error in GST Tran-1 form for transitional credit.
3. Failure of Nodal Officer to address complaints under CGST and SGST Acts.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a writ for amending the registration application in compliance with GST Rules, 2017. Counsel highlighted the appointment of a Nodal Officer by the Union of India to address grievances, citing a similar directive by Karnataka High Court in a related case. The Court acknowledged the necessity for the Nodal Officer to consider complaints and issued a direction for the same.

2. The petitioner aimed to rectify a genuine mistake in the GST Tran-1 form, resulting in the loss of transitional credit amounting to ?9,74,57,802. The petitioner correctly filed the form within the stipulated time but erroneously omitted details in Column 6, affecting the credit ledger. Despite multiple complaints to the Nodal Officer, no action was taken. The Court emphasized the Nodal Officer's duty to address complaints promptly under the CGST and SGST Acts and instructed a timely decision on the petitioner's representation.

3. The Court reiterated the obligation of the Nodal Officer under the CGST and SGST Acts to review and decide on complaints. Emphasizing the failure to act on the petitioner's representations, the Court directed the Nodal Officer to promptly address the complaint and make a lawful decision within two weeks of receiving the order. The petitioner retained the option to approach the Court if unsatisfied with the outcome, ensuring a fair opportunity for redressal. The judgment concluded by directing the issuance of a certified copy in adherence to procedural rules.