2023 (4) TMI 698 - HC - GST

Rejection of application for extension of time - Jurisdiction for rejecting the extension - inconsistency with Rule 40(1)(b) of GST Rules - HELD THAT - The petitioner has admittedly made a representation/application for extension of time before the first respondent and the first respondent instead of passing orders on the said representation, kept the matter pending for nearly a year and thereafter, the second respondent has passed the order impugned in this writ petition stating that the petitioner's request was rejected by the first respondent and the said order has been issued with the approval of the first respondent. The order impugned in this writ petition is set aside and remitted to the first respondent, who shall pass appropriate orders, after hearing the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved: Challenging order of second respondent for extension of time to file ITC-01, jurisdiction of second respondent, principles of natural justice.

Summary:

Extension of Time for ITC-01 Filing:
The petitioner, engaged in rotomolding manufacturing, sought to utilize input tax credit through Form GSTR 3B after switching from composition scheme to regular dealer. Despite submitting a representation and reminders, the second respondent rejected the extension request citing lack of notification. The petitioner contended that the rejection was inconsistent with Rule 40(1)(b) of GST Rules and against natural justice principles.

Jurisdiction and Delay in Decision:
The petitioner's counsel argued that the second respondent's rejection lacked jurisdiction and highlighted the delay in decision-making, emphasizing that keeping representations pending without orders goes against natural justice. On the other hand, the senior standing counsel for the respondents clarified that the second respondent merely communicated the first respondent's decision to reject the extension request due to absence of a relevant notification.

Court's Decision and Direction:
After considering both sides, the Court found that the first respondent had kept the matter pending for an extended period before the second respondent issued the impugned order. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the first respondent to pass appropriate orders, after hearing the petitioner, within four weeks from the date of the Court's order. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.