A single bench of the Calcutta High Court ordered the respondent Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) authorities to submit an affidavit concerning the confusion of updating the Goods and Services Tax Identification Number (GSTIN) of the service applicant in the Goods and Services Tax Portal (GST Portal).
The Justice Md. Nizamuddin panel noted that the writ petition was a second round of a follow-up lawsuit brought by the petitioner, who requested permission to rectify the service recipients’ GSTIN on the applicable Goods and Services Tax bills at the GST portal.
Additionally, the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Budge Charge instructed the petitioner to submit a request to rectify the GSTIN before GSTN.
As per the High Court’s directive, the petitioner approached the GSTN authority, which has not given any relief and just instructed the petitioner to seek such relief from the other authority.
Maiti, the attorney who appeared on behalf of the Central Goods and Service Tax Authorities was also instructed to take the instruction as to which legal authority is best suited to help the petitioner in this case.
The West Bengal Goods and Services Tax (WBGST) authority is the respondent to the petition. The counsel of the respondent requested more time to seek the right instruction and figure out how to resolve the issue.
The single-judge bench observed that it is regretful if the government employees and authorities under the GST Act are unaware of the proper course of action that has the potential to grant relief to the petitioner.
Furthermore, it was stated that it is not a case that the claim asked for by the petitioner is not genuine or the petitioner is not entitled to get the same. Only for the clerical mistake, the Government cannot usurp the money of a taxpayer and make him run to pillar to post for a refund of the same.
Additionally, it was stated that the case is neither about whether the petitioner’s request for a claim is genuine nor his or her right to get the same. The government cannot only seize a taxpayer’s money just because of a clerical error and force him to go from pillar to post to get the money back.
The bench concluded and declared that no interim orders could be made in the case and that the respondent’s affidavit had to be submitted in order for a concluding resolution of the issue stated in the writ petition. As a result, the respondents were asked to submit an affidavit on the subject. The case’s final hearing was scheduled in the month of July 2023.
|Dynasoure Concrete Treatment Private Limited Vs Chairman
|WPA 7406 OF 2023
|Counsel for Appellant
|Mr Arijit Chakraborty, Mr Ankit Agarwalla and Ms A. Mukherjee
|Counsel for Respondent
|Mr. Tarun Chatterjee, Mr. Soumya Sankar Chini and Mr, Raju Mondal