Disposed

M/S Jay Steels v. Union of India and 4 Others

Allahabad HC7 Jan 2021WTAX/390/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking relief for manual GSTR-3B return acceptance and input tax credit refund. The court directed the respondent authorities to decide the petitioners pending representation expeditiously without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Direction to competent authorities to decide the pending representation of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law and expeditiously.

M/S Jay Steels Vs Union of India and 4 Others — Consumer Protection | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 390 of 2020 Petitioner :- M/S Jay Steels Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shubham Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Munna Kumar Singh

¶3

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Shubham Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Ashok Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 and Sri Mata Prasad and Sri Apurva Hajela for respondents nos.4 and 5.

¶5

The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs:-

¶6

"(a) Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to accept the manual GSTR 3B return from the petitioner and to process the same for the period August, 2018 to August 2019;

¶7

(b) Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to open the GST portal by permitting the petitioner to amend its summary GSTR 3B return for the period August, 2018 to August, 2019;

¶8

(c) Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to decide the representation dated 15.11.2019 and 5.11.2019 (Annexure Nos.6 & 4) filed by the petitioner;

¶9

(d) Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to refund the input tax credit as is available to the petitioner for the period August, 2018 to August, 2019;"

¶10

Sri Shubham Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of (Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others 2020 TN (73)-17) . The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereinabove:

¶11

"24. Thus, in light of the above discussion, the rectification of the return for that very month to which it relates is imperative and, accordingly, we read down para 4 of the impugned Circular No. 26/26/2017-GST dated 29.12.2017 to the extent that it restricts the rectification of Form GSTR-3B in respect of the period in which the error has occurred. Accordingly, we allow the present petition and permit the Petitioner to rectify Form GSTR3B for the period to which the error relates, i.e. the relevant period from July, 2017 to September, 2017. We also direct the Respondents that on filing of the rectified Form GSTR-3B, they shall, within a period of two

¶12

weeks, verify the claim made therein and give effect to the same once verified. In view of the fact that the final relief sought by the Petitioner has been granted and the petition is allowed, no separate order is required to be passed in the application seeking interim relief. Accordingly, the said application is disposed of as such."

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the present matter is squarely covered with the aforesaid judgment and as such, the claim of the petitioner is to be addressed in the light of the aforesaid judgement. In this regard, he has already made a detailed representation on 15.11.2019/5.11.2019 before the concerned authorities, which is pending consideration.

¶14

Learned Standing Counsel very fairly states that in case the representation is still pending and the same has not been decided, then definitely the authority concerned would proceed to take a final call in the matter.

¶15

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and with the consent, the writ petition is disposed of asking the competent authority, i.e. respondent nos. 4 and 5, Joint Commissioner (I.T. Cell), Commercial Tax, 7-A, Ashok Marg, Lucknow and Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, State GST Department, Division-4, Jhansi to decide the representation of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law, expeditiously.

¶16

With the aforesaid direction/observation, the present petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶17

Order Date :- 7.1.2021 Ishan

M/S Jay Steels v. Union of India and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Jay Steels v. Union of India and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Bachan Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Muzibul Hasan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Virendra Pathak Vs Purvanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited and Another

Birendra Singh Vs State of U.P. through Its Special Secretary(Excise) Government of U.P. and 3 Others

Arvind Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Manoj and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others