2020 (1) TMI 392 - HC - GST

Inability of petitioner in moving Advance Ruling application - petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted to proceed to move the application for advance ruling physically - HELD THAT - There are no impediment in the petitioner doing so. It would not be fair that the petitioner is prevented from seeking an advance ruling, merely because he is registered as an OIDAR service provider. The respondents are directed to entertain the physical application of the petitioner to seek advance ruling, which may be made within a week. The petitioner is permitted to deposit the fee for advance ruling and provide physical challan to the respondents along with his application. List on 18.02.2020.

Summary

Issues: Correction of order dated 05.12.2019, Tax payment for May 2019, Inability to file an application for advance ruling

The judgment addresses the issue of the correction of an order dated 05.12.2019 where the presence of the counsel for respondent No. 1 was not recorded. The applicant sought correction, and the court allowed the application, directing that the appearance of the counsel be treated as recorded in the order. This issue was disposed of accordingly.

Regarding the tax payment for May 2019, it was stated that the tax had already been paid by the petitioner for that month. Respondent No. 4 assured that no separate demand for tax related to May 2019 would be raised on the petitioner. Additionally, the petitioner's inability to file an application for advance ruling was discussed. The petitioner highlighted that the current electronic system prevented registered applicants from uploading such applications, causing potential tax liabilities and penalties. The court acknowledged this concern and permitted the petitioner to proceed with a physical application for advance ruling within a week. The petitioner was also allowed to deposit the fee and provide a physical challan along with the application for processing by the authorities.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the correction of an order, confirmed the tax payment for May 2019, and resolved the issue of the petitioner's inability to file an application for advance ruling by allowing a physical submission within a specified timeline. The court ensured that the petitioner was not disadvantaged by the electronic system's limitations and directed the respondents to process the physical application promptly.