2021 (2) TMI 591 - HC - GST

Seeking directions to have access to the GST common portal to enable him to upload the returns for the period from the date of implementation of the GST Act - seeking to get acceptance of the revised return from 2017 to enable filing of regular returns ended up in rejection through the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge - HELD THAT - After the coming into force of the GST regime, the Government, on the basis of recommendations of the GST Council, notified that a Common Goods and Services Tax Electronic Portal be maintained. The said portal is maintained as www.gst.gov.in by the Goods and Services Tax Network, which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013. If the appellant had any grievance, nothing prevented him from taking up the issue in the appropriate manner with the IT Grievance Redressal Portal so as to avail the remedy from the Goods and Services Tax Network. He failed to raise any complaint with the IT Grievance Redressal Portal. In such circumstances, the appellant cannot seek the remedy of a writ of mandamus from this Court. In the absence of any attempt on the part of the appellant to seek recourse to the remedy available with the establishment that maintains the portal, the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge is perfectly justified and warrants no interference. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Appellant's access to GST common portal for uploading returns and acceptance of revised returns.

Analysis:
The appellant, a works contractor under the KVAT Act, transitioned to the GST regime with the GST Act's implementation. He faced issues with the GST common portal not accepting returns after 31.3.2018, preventing him from uploading returns or rectifying mistakes. The appellant sought directions to accept revised returns from 2017 onwards and access to the GST portal. The respondents argued that the appellant, as a service provider, was not eligible for composition under the CGST Act. They highlighted that the appellant did not raise technical issues with relevant evidence and had accessed the portal multiple times during the disputed period.

The single Judge dismissed the writ petition, stating that the appellant failed to explain why he couldn't open the portal or why his returns weren't accepted. The appellant contended that the issue arose due to a technical problem, causing him significant hardship. The High Court noted that a Common Goods and Services Tax Electronic Portal was maintained post-GST regime implementation, and the appellant could have raised grievances through the IT Grievance Redressal Portal but failed to do so. The Court upheld the single Judge's decision, emphasizing that the appellant didn't utilize available remedies and couldn't seek a writ of mandamus.

The Court acknowledged that the appellant had accessed the portal for various purposes but never attempted to file the revised option. As the appellant didn't seek recourse with the portal's establishment, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the single Judge's decision. However, the Court granted the appellant the liberty to make an application before the appropriate authority as per the law. The writ appeal was dismissed, affirming the single Judge's judgment and advising the appellant to follow the prescribed application process for seeking relief.