Disposed

Mohammed Ali v. Union of India

Kerala HC23 Sept 2020WP(C)/16444/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a managing director regarding a tax grievance concerning incorrect GST entries for an export sale. The petitioner sought a direction to the GST Network to decide his application, and the Court issued a two-month deadline for a decision with a hearing. No legal propositions were laid down.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd Respondent to decide the representation dated 06.02.2020 within two months after affording an opportunity of hearing.

Mohammed Ali Vs Union of India — GST and Indirect Tax | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 1ST ASWINA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.16444 OF 2020(E)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MOHAMMED ALI, AGED 65 YEARS S/O.BAVA, MANAGING DIRECTOR, MALAMPUZHA STEELS PVT. LTD., 3/138, PARRYS GARDEN, KADUKKANKUNNAM, PALAKKAD-678 005.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶11

2 GOODS AND SERVICE TAX NETWORK WORLD MARK 1, AEROCITY, INDIRA GANDHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, NEW DELHI-110037, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶12

3 CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶13

4 JOINT COMMISSIONER STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002.

¶14

5 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD, 678 001.

¶15

BY SRI.HARIDAS P.NAIR, CGC

¶16

SR.GP – SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN, CGC – SRI.SREEJITH

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No.16444 OF 2020(E)

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Dated this the 23rd day of September 2020

¶22

The petitioner through the instant writ petition has sought

¶23

the indulgence of this Court for issuing writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to decide Ext.P5 inter alia on the ground that in June, 2018, the petitioner's company shipped 52 tonnes of Zinc Ingot to one of its customers in Kuwait. The supplier charged 18% GST as per Ext.P1. After payment to supplier which also included 18% of IGST, the material was sent to Kuwait from Ahammadabad Port. Due to an inadvertent mistake, two incorrect entries were reflected in Form GSTR 1 ie., the port code was shown incorrectly and the payment was shown as without GST. The petitioner tried to rectify the mistake through online but there was no such provisions therein. Accordingly, a complaint was lodged with the 5^th respondent regarding this and on 13/02/2019, a reply was given by the 5^th respondent as per the instruction of the 4^th respondent, directing the petitioner to register a complaint with ICEGATE Portal and also with the Commissioner of Port of

¶24

WP(C).No.16444 OF 2020(E)

¶25

¶26

Export at Ahamadabad. The petitioner registered a complaint vide Ext.P3. When the petitioner raised his grievance in Grievance redressal portal of GST, they issued a ticket number as mentioned paragraph 6 of the petitioner's statement. They closed it with a message 'resolved' without doing anything. It is in this background petitioner submitted an application before the 2^nd respondent requesting to redress his grievance, on 06/02/2020 (Ext.P5).

¶27

The learned counsel for respondents submits that there is no prima facie proof of receipt of the representation Ext.P5, but the department would not be averse in deciding the same in case an appropriate direction is given within a reasonable time. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that they have no role to play as representation Ext.P5 is addressed to respondent No.2.

¶28

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, I dispose of the present writ petition by issuing direction to the 2^nd respondent to decide

¶29

¶30

WP(C).No.16444 OF 2020(E)

¶31

representation Ext.P5 dated 06.02.2020 after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law. The respondents are at liberty to afford a virtual hearing to the petitioner in view of the Covid-19 pandemic. Let this exercise be undertaken within a period of two months.

¶32

This writ petition stand disposed of.

¶33

Sd/AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

¶34

nak

¶35

WP(C).No.16444 OF 2020(E)

¶36

¶37

APPENDIX

¶38

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶39

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF TAX INVOICE DATED 2.6.2018. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF INTIMATION FORM 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 22.6.2019.

¶40

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF REQUEST BEFORE COMMISSIONER AHMADABAD CUSTOMS DATED 4.3.2019. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER TO JURISDICTIONAL OFFICER PALAKKAD DATED 1.8.2019. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 6.2.2020.

¶41

//TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE

Mohammed Ali v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Ali v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

DM Education and Research Foundation Vs State of Kerala

Lijish Kumar C.K Vs S.Shanavas IAS

Sandeep S. Vs Income Tax Officer-Ward 4

T.I.Raju Vs the Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority

Kovval Mohammed Kunhi Vs the State of Kerala

P.S.Abdul Nazar, Vs State of Kerala