2021 (2) TMI 628 - HC - GST

Seeking direction to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBITC) to reply to the representation of the petitioner - whether there is any mandate in law on the respondent CBITC to reply to each and every representation made/communication sent to it? - HELD THAT - The communication dated 17th November, 2020 seeks clarification of Section 168 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) on issues arising out of interception/detention and seizure/confiscation proceedings under Sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act by the Karnataka authorities. The communication dated 17 th November, 2020 is in the nature of seeking legal opinion from CBITC. There is no such obligation on the respondent no.2 CBITC and the counsel for the petitioner has not cited any authority holding so, to advise the petitioner on, the authority under which goods in movement are intercepted, detained and/or procedure to be adopted thereafter and the scope of verification of documents etc. The petitioner, if in doubt as to the legal position, instead of seeking legal counsel of its advisors/advocates, cannot turn to respondent No. 2 CBITC to give legal opinion. Though the counsel for the petitioner has no reply but the counsel for the respondent no.6 fairly informs that under Section 30 of the CGST Act, an application for revocation of the cancellation of registration is permitted to be filed. He further states that the respondent no.6 will decide the application dated 3rd November, 2020 of the petitioner in a time bound manner - The petition is disposed of directing the respondent to decide the application dated 3rd November, 2020 of the petitioner under Section 30 of the Act, within four weeks of today.

Summary

Issues:
1. Direction to CBITC to reply to petitioner's representation.
2. Direction to Sales Tax Officer to decide on petitioner's representation.
3. Cancellation of petitioner's registration and remedy available.

Analysis:
1. The petition sought a direction for CBITC to respond to the petitioner's representation dated 17th November, 2020. The court noted that the communication sought clarification on certain provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The court observed that there is no legal obligation on CBITC to provide legal opinions on such matters. The petitioner was advised to seek legal counsel from their advisors instead of expecting legal opinions from CBITC.

2. The petition also requested direction to the Sales Tax Officer to address the petitioner's representation dated 15th January, 2021. The court inquired if challenging the cancellation of registration would be a more appropriate remedy instead of making representations. The respondent informed the court about the provision under Section 30 of the CGST Act, allowing for an application for revocation of registration cancellation. The court directed the Sales Tax Officer to decide on the petitioner's application under Section 30 within four weeks.

3. The petitioner's counsel mentioned that the respondent had canceled the petitioner's registration. The court highlighted the provision for filing an application for revocation of registration cancellation under Section 30 of the Act. The respondent assured the court of deciding on the petitioner's application dated 3rd November, 2020, in a time-bound manner. Consequently, the court disposed of the petition, directing the Sales Tax Officer to decide on the application within four weeks from the date of the judgment.