2022 (10) TMI 504 - HC - GST

Transfer of registration of the dealer pursuant to the death of the proprietor of the firm - Inaction of the GST department in opening the portal qua the petitioner - GSTIN of the transferee and the transferor were not linked only on account of the information not being provided electronically on the common portal in FORM GST REG-16 - HELD THAT - This absolute hypertechnical ground cannot be considered valid so as to deny the petitioner from the opportunity to link the GSTIN of his father s firm with the new GSTIN number of the firm. As a matter of fact, the petitioner gave the intimation about the death of the proprietor of the firm which fact establishes his bonafides that he is desirous of removing the anomalies and clearing off the tax liability. The respondents are directed to activate the common portal and allow the petitioner to upload the appropriate information in FORM REG- 16 within next 30 days. As soon as the information is provided, the GSTIN number of the transferee and the transferor shall be linked as per clause 3(b) of the Circular dated 28.03.2019 - writ petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Inaction of respondent in opening portal for tax liability completion under Section 93 of CGST Act, 2017.
2. Non-acceptance of prayer for cancellation and transfer of GST registration.
3. Dispute over application for cancellation made in FORM GST REG-29 instead of FORM GST REG-16.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a firm, approached the High Court seeking to challenge the respondent's inaction in opening the portal to allow the completion of tax liability under Section 93 of the CGST Act, 2017. The issue arose due to the death of the firm's proprietor, leading to a need for cancellation and transfer of registration. The petitioner faced obstacles as the information about the proprietor's death was not uploaded electronically on the common portal in the prescribed FORM GST REG-16, resulting in the blockage of GST return filing attempts. Despite acquiring a fresh registration, the petitioner was unable to resolve the tax liabilities due to this technicality.

2. The petitioner contended that the respondent's stance, based on the application for cancellation being made in FORM GST REG-29 instead of FORM GST REG-16, was hyper-technical and unjustified. The petitioner argued that the information about the proprietor's death was indeed provided, albeit in a different format, and referred to a relevant circular emphasizing the procedure for cancellation in case of the proprietor's death. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's efforts to rectify the situation, highlighting the importance of linking the old and new GSTIN numbers to clear off tax liabilities and avoid discrepancies.

3. The Court found the respondent's hypertechnical approach unreasonable, especially considering the petitioner's genuine intention to address the issue promptly. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to activate the common portal within 30 days to allow the petitioner to upload the necessary information in FORM GST REG-16. This action would facilitate linking the GSTIN numbers of the transferor and transferee as per the circular's guidelines, enabling the petitioner to resolve the tax liability issues effectively. The writ petition was allowed in favor of the petitioner, with no costs imposed.