2023 (7) TMI 1167 - HC - GST

Directions regarding compliance of order of High Court - post decisional hearing issued without complying with the direction by High Court - permission to allow amendment in the registration application by opening the GSTN Portal restricted to the Petitioner - direction to allow rectification and further allow the Petitioner to regularize the credit of tax paid on purchases and to utilize the same as set off against final payment of the tax - disallowance of ITC - penalty or interest on due GST Tax - HELD THAT - From the record it is apparent that this Court in N.P. INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2019 (8) TMI 1134 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT had directed the complaint/representation of the petitioner to be considered within two weeks. The same was made by the petitioner on 20.05.2019 and as per the petitioner, the same has not been decided till now and the impugned notice has been issued. It is hence directed that in case no decision has been taken upon petitioner's application/representation dated 20.05.2019 Annexure P/6 till now, then the Nodal Officer shall take a decision thereupon within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and thereafter only the respondents shall proceed further in the matter pursuant to the notice dated 4.10.2022 - Till the decision by the Nodal Officer, the impugned notice dated 4.10.2022 shall be kept in abeyance. The petitioner is directed to furnish a certified copy of this order in the Office of Respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 8 within a period of ten days from today. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Compliance with court directions by Respondent 8
2. Quashing of notice dated 04.10.2022
3. Amendment in registration application
4. Rectification and regularization of tax credit
5. Disallowance of ITC credit
6. Levy of penalty or interest on GST tax
7. Additional reliefs sought by the petitioner

Comprehensive Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought compliance with court directions by Respondent 8, as per the order dated 08.05.2019 in W.P. 26509/2018. The petitioner claimed that despite approaching the Nodal Officer with the order copy, no decision had been made, and a notice dated 4.10.2022 was issued instead. The petitioner argued that the notice should not have been issued without the Nodal Officer's decision as per the court order.

2. The respondent's counsel contended that the notice dated 4.10.2022 instructed the petitioner to provide clarifications and relevant documents before further proceedings. It was suggested that the petitioner should have complied with the notice's requirements instead of directly approaching the court. The court noted the discrepancy between the order's directive and the issuance of the notice.

3. The court observed that the order in W.P. No. 26509/2018 mandated the Nodal Officer to consider the petitioner's complaint within two weeks. Since the petitioner's representation made on 20.05.2019 remained undecided, the court directed the Nodal Officer to make a decision within six weeks from the order's receipt. It was further specified that the respondents should proceed only after the Nodal Officer's decision.

4. Pending the Nodal Officer's decision, the court ordered the impugned notice dated 4.10.2022 to be suspended. The petitioner was instructed to provide a certified copy of the court order to the relevant respondents within ten days. With these directions, the petition was disposed of, ensuring the Nodal Officer's timely decision before further proceedings.