Allowed

M/s. Chinmay Medicals, v. The Commercial Tax Officer

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Sept 2019WP/5823/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a GST migration application. Finding that the rejection ignored an extension in Notification No.67/2018, the Court set aside the endorsement and directed authorities to process the application for Input Tax Credit.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned endorsement dated 28.02.2019 and direct Respondents 1 and 2 to reconsider the matter and grant the Input Tax Credit certificate.

M/s. Chinmay Medicals, Vs The Commercial Tax… — GST and Indirect Tax | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. SEETHARAMA MURTI

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI

¶4

WRIT PETITION No.5823 of 2019

¶5

ORDER : (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice M.Seetharama Murti)

¶6

This writ petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶7

India, seeking verbatim the following relief:-

¶8

“….declaring the action of the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Tirupati-I Circle, Tirupati in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner on 19.01.2019, on the ground that the migration process has not been completed by the dealer and hence the GSTIN status is in provisional and the process for completing the migration process is completed on 31.08.2018 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, contrary to the Notification No.67/2018 dated 31.12.2018 and contrary to GST Act and Rules and violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 31 & 38 of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the endorsement and direct the authorities to grant the certificate from 1.7.2017 onwards enabling the petitioner to claim its input tax credit as per the provisions of the GST Act, 2017 and to grant such other relief or releifs.”

¶9

We have heard the submissions of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner; of learned Government pleader for Commercial Taxes appearing for the respondents 1 to 4; of the learned senior standing counsel for Central Tax, appearing for the 5^th respondent; and of the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the 6^th respondent/Union of India.

¶10

We have perused the material record.

¶11

In this writ petition, the challenge is to the endorsement, dated 28.02.2019, issued by the 2^nd respondent whereby the dealer’s request for migration was rejected on the ground that the dealer has not completed the migration process and that the process for completion of migration process is completed, on 31.08.2018, which is the last date.

¶12

¶13

Learned senior counsel would submit that by Notification No.67/2018-CT, dated 31.12.2018, the date is extended till 31.01.2019 for clause (i) and till 28.2.2019 for clause (iv) by amendment to the notification No.31/2018-C.T and that in the case on hand, the requisite application was filed on 19.01.2019 and that the impugned endorsement came to be issued without noticing the extended date in the Notification No.67/2018-CT, dated 31.12.2018, and, therefore, the matter requires to be remitted to the respondents 1and 2 for reconsideration.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents do not dispute the factual position and also the terms of the notification aforementioned.

¶15

Having regard to the facts and submissions, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned endorsement and directing the respondents 1 and 2 to do needful in the matter as per law and as expeditiously as possible to enable the petitioner to claim the input tax credit as per the provisions of the GST Act, 2017. No order as to costs.

¶16

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶17

_____________________________ M. SEETHARAMA MURTI, J

¶18

_______________ J.UMA DEVI, J

¶19

Date:12.09.2019. Gk

¶20

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. SEETHARAMA MURTI

¶22