2020 (10) TMI 723 - HC - GST

Denial of Generation of E-way bill - petitioners were informed that unless they clear their GSTR-3B return for 02 or more tax periods upto August, 2020, their EWB generation facility will be blocked on the EWB portal - HELD THAT - Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Standing counsel, GST Department submits that he be permitted time till 19th of October to obtain the required instructions in the matter - Accordingly upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, list the matter again on 19th October, 2020 for further orders. List accordingly.

Summary

Issues:
1. E-way Bill generation facility restriction for non-filing of GSTR-3B returns.
2. Pending refund applications under Budgetary Support Scheme.
3. Alleged unjust blockage of EWB portal affecting business operations.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the issue of the E-way Bill generation facility being liable for restriction as per Rule 138 E (b) of the CGST Rules, 2017, in case of non-filing of GSTR-3B returns for two or more consecutive months for taxpayers with an Aggregate Annual Turn Over (AATO) exceeding ?5 Crores. The petitioner was aggrieved by an email from the authorities informing about the potential blockage of their EWB generation facility due to pending GSTR-3B returns. The petitioner argued that the blockage would severely impact their business, especially considering the substantial amount claimed under the Budgetary Support Scheme that remained unpaid by the authorities. The court, after hearing both parties, ordered that no coercive action should be taken against the petitioner as per the email dated 08.10.2020, and the EWB portal should not be blocked until further orders from the Court, listing the matter for further orders on 19th October, 2020.

2. Another issue raised in the judgment pertains to the pending refund applications under the Budgetary Support Scheme submitted by the petitioner, amounting to ?14,42,51,265, which the petitioner claimed had not been addressed by the authorities. The petitioner highlighted that the outstanding amount payable by them was significantly lower than the refund claimed under the scheme. The petitioner's counsel argued that the blockage of the EWB portal, as threatened in the email, was unjust and could potentially lead to the closure of their business. The court acknowledged the petitioner's concerns and restrained any coercive action until further orders, indicating a need for a more detailed examination of the situation.

3. The final issue discussed in the judgment revolves around the alleged unjust impact of blocking the EWB portal on the petitioner's business operations. The petitioner contended that the blockage, as communicated in the email, would effectively result in the closure of their business. The authorities, represented by the learned Standing counsel, requested time to obtain instructions in the matter, leading to the court listing the case for further orders. The court's interim directive to refrain from taking coercive action against the petitioner and to maintain the status quo regarding the EWB portal signifies a recognition of the potential adverse consequences the blockage could have on the petitioner's business, pending a more detailed examination and resolution of the underlying issues.