2019 (11) TMI 889 - HC - GST

Migration of GST registration - the petitioner did not choose to migrate to the regular registration within the time granted under the Statute. The migration did not happen even thereafter within the two subsequent periods of extension - CGST Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT - The request of the petitioner cannot be entertained, since the petitioner did not avail of the many opportunities granted by the respondents for migrating to the GST registration - The inaction on the part of the petitioner cannot be condoned, and hence, taking note of the averments in the statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, the prayer sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petitioner seeking direction for migration to GST registration.
2. Failure of petitioner to migrate within stipulated time.
3. Request for migration with effect from July 2017.
4. Denial of prayer by the court.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a works contract service provider, filed a writ petition requesting the 3rd respondent to consider allowing her to migrate to GST registration from the previous registration held under the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner was allotted a provisional GSTIN after the introduction of GST, and the migration to a regular GSTIN within the transition period was required. However, the petitioner failed to migrate within the stipulated time despite extensions granted by the Central Government.

2. The court noted that the petitioner did not avail the opportunities provided by the authorities for migrating to the GST registration within the specified periods, including extensions up to 31.1.2019. The petitioner only obtained a fresh registration under the GST Act in March 2019. Due to the petitioner's inaction and failure to migrate timely, the court found that the request to migrate with effect from July 2017 could not be entertained.

3. The prayer in the writ petition was primarily to allow migration to GST registration from July 2017 to enable the petitioner to pay applicable taxes and claim input credit for the accumulated stock at that time. However, the court held that condoning the petitioner's inaction and granting the prayer sought would not be justified. The court emphasized that the petitioner's failure to avail multiple opportunities for migration cannot be overlooked.

4. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, citing the petitioner's non-compliance with the migration requirements and the failure to take advantage of the extensions provided by the authorities. The court, based on the statements filed by the respondents, concluded that the petitioner's request for migration to GST registration with effect from July 2017 could not be granted due to the petitioner's own lapses and delays.