2020 (12) TMI 579 - HC - GST

Seeking Direction to respondents to accept the request for access to GST portal enabling the petitioner to upload return for the periods from the implementation of GST - It is submitted that there is no proof that the GST portal of the petitioner has been blocked after 31.3.2018 - HELD THAT - There is no force and merit in the submission of the counsel for the petitioner. There is no proof that the petitioner had actually opted for the portal. The composition is not permitted as the portal only permits for filing of the GSTR 4 - There is no explanation as to how and in what manner the petitioner has not been able to open the portal nor any photo copy of the proof has been attached or the circumstances in which the returns could not have been accepted is not explained. The contention of the petitioner is baseless, devoid of merit and no ground for interference is made out - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeking access to GST portal for uploading returns and requesting acceptance of revised returns from 2017 to March 2018.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a taxpayer under the CGST and SGST Act 2017, approached the court seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents to allow access to the GST portal for uploading returns. The petitioner, a registered works contractor under the KVAT Act before the introduction of GST, claimed to have faced difficulties in accessing the portal since March 2018. Despite requesting rectification of return, no action was taken by the department. The petitioner provided evidence of filing income tax returns.

On the other hand, the Government Pleader stated that the petitioner's request for composition was forwarded to the Joint Commissioner, SGSTD, Kannur. It was revealed that the portal only allowed filing of GSTR 4, not for composition. The petitioner was informed of this limitation. The Government Pleader argued that there was no proof of the petitioner's GST portal being blocked after March 31, 2018.

After hearing both parties, the court found no merit in the petitioner's submission. The court noted the lack of evidence showing that the petitioner had actually opted for the portal. It was clarified that the portal did not permit composition and only allowed for filing GSTR 4. The court highlighted that the petitioner failed to provide any explanation or proof regarding the alleged inability to access the portal or why the returns could not have been accepted. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, deeming the petitioner's contentions baseless and devoid of merit, with no grounds for interference established.