Messrs Vishnu Aroma Pouching Pvt Ltd VS Union Of India

The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks several reliefs from the court. Firstly, it requests the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, Writ of Certiorari, or any other suitable writ, direction, or order to annul and invalidate a decision made by the respondents, as communicated through a letter dated March 7, 2019 (referred to as Annexure-“I”). The petitioners seek this action along with consequential reliefs, including a declaration that their tax liability for August 2017 has been fully discharged within the timeframe specified under the GST Laws.

Secondly, the petitioners ask for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate directive to compel the respondents to regularize the petitioners’ GSTR-3B for August 2017 (referred to as Annexure-“B”) to align it with the information provided in their GSTR-1 (referred to as Annexure-“D”), particularly concerning the payment of tax due for August 2017.

Thirdly, the petitioners request a Writ of Mandamus or any suitable writ, direction, or order to instruct the respondents, their representatives, and agents to make the necessary entry in the petitioners’ electronic liability register corresponding to the Unique Identification Number, indicating the discharge of the petitioners’ tax liability for August 2017.

The first petitioner is identified as Messrs Vishnu Aroma Private Limited.

The petitioner, Messrs Vishnu Aroma Private Limited, is engaged in manufacturing Pan Masala under the brand name “Vimal”. They are registered as a manufacturer and supplier of Pan Masala and have been diligently fulfilling their tax obligations under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Acts, as well as adhering to the procedural formalities outlined in the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (CGST Rules).

Since the implementation of the GST Laws from July 1, 2017, all transactions related to record-keeping, tax payment, submission of returns, etc., are electronically managed through the common portal established by the Central Government. The petitioner asserts that they have been consistently meeting these procedural requirements electronically, as mandated by law.

For the month of August 2017, the petitioner’s total tax liability amounted to Rs. 128,63,47,508/-. They discharged this liability partially by paying taxes in cash and partially by utilizing Input Tax Credit (ITC) legally available to them. Specifically, the petitioner paid Rs. 87,62,55,084/- and Rs. 26,88,56,662/- of tax liability from their HDFC Bank account, while Rs. 14,12,35,762/- was paid by utilizing ITC from their credit ledger.

The petitioner made payments of Rs. 87,62,55,084/- and Rs. 26,88,56,662/- on September 19, 2017, via separate challans. The procedure for tax payment is outlined in Section 49 of the CGST Act, allowing for various modes including internet banking. Subsection (7) of Section 49 mandates the recording and maintenance of all taxable person liabilities in an Electronic Liability Register, as prescribed by Rule 85(1) of the CGST Rules. Form GST PMT-01 is designated for this purpose, with the petitioner’s electronic liability register maintained on the common portal.

Rule 87(1) of the CGST Rules stipulates the maintenance of an electronic cash ledger for cash payments, which is managed on the common portal, allowing for crediting and debiting of amounts towards tax, interest, etc. When payments are made via internet banking, a Challan Portal Identification Number (CPIN) is generated.

In the case of the petitioner, two challans dated September 19, 2017, were utilized to pay a total sum of Rs. 114.51 crores.

The CPINs generated for the petitioner’s tax payments on September 19, 2017, are 17092400195007 and 17092400195744. Upon successful credit of the amount to the relevant government account, the collecting bank generates a Challan Identification Number (CIN), which, in the petitioner’s case, are HDFC17092400195007 and HDFC17092400195744. Subsequently, the amount is credited to the petitioner’s electronic cash ledger, and a receipt is issued by the common portal to confirm the transaction, in accordance with sub-rule (7) of rule 87 of the CGST Rules.

Additionally, Rule 88(1) of the CGST Rules mandates the generation of a Unique Identification Number (UIN) at the common portal for each debit or credit to the electronic cash or credit ledger. This UIN ensures proper tracking and documentation of ledger transactions.

The Unique Identification Numbers (UINs) have also been generated for each of the challans, with the UIN shown as ‘BRN’, which stands for Bank Reference Number. The numbers provided are BRN 374991396 and BRN 374995316. These numbers are visible on the challans generated on the common portal, indicating that the petitioner has indeed fulfilled their tax obligations for August 2017.

However, there’s a procedural hiccup noted in the case of the petitioner. Despite the successful payment of taxes, the requirement of indicating a Unique Identification Number relating to the discharge of any liability in the corresponding entry of the electronic liability register, as mandated by sub-rule (2) of rule 88 of the CGST Rules, wasn’t completed due to a glitch and subsequent crashing of the common portal system in September 2017.

It’s clarified that there’s no dispute or doubt regarding the payment of Rs. 114.51 crores (rounded off) in cash towards the petitioner’s tax liability of August 2017. The remaining amount of Rs. 14.12 crores (rounded off) has been paid from Input Tax Credit (ITC) legally available to the petitioner, with the necessary debit entry made in the petitioner’s credit ledger. There’s no dispute or doubt about the payment of tax from ITC either.

The petitioner intended to furnish GSTR-3B on September 20, 2017, after discharging the entire tax liability of August 2017 by September 19, 2017. However, due to the malfunctioning of the common portal, this submission couldn’t be made as planned.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: