Metal Handicrafts vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others

In this legal matter, Sri Rahul Agarwal, counsel for the petitioner, along with Sri C.B. Tripathi, the State’s Special Counsel, and Sri Vinay Kumar Pandey, representing respondent no.2, were heard. The petitioner is a unit of a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and registered under the U.P. VAT Act effective from April 1, 2011. Following the implementation of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) on July 1, 2017, the petitioner was required to transition from VAT to GST. This transition necessitated the generation of a new user ID and password, a task assigned to the U.P. VAT Department by the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN).

As a corporate entity, the petitioner applied for GST migration, with the application signed by one of its directors, Shri Dheeraj Jain, and supported by the company’s PAN card. Subsequently, the petitioner was issued a GST registration number. However, a critical error occurred during the registration process: the legal name of the petitioner was incorrectly recorded as Dheeraj Jain instead of the company’s actual name. This mistake resulted in the GST registration number, user ID, and password being linked to the PAN number of Dheeraj Jain, who is merely a director of the company.

Despite completing the migration process using the provided registration number and password, the petitioner faced significant issues due to the incorrect information. The petitioner has made numerous requests and reminders, and even engaged in personal meetings with officials to correct this error, but these efforts have been fruitless. A letter dated February 3, 2018, from the Joint Commissioner/Nodal Officer (GST) of the Moradabad Zone addressed the petitioner’s grievance but failed to resolve the issue.

To elaborate further, the petitioner’s company, which had been smoothly operating under the U.P. VAT Act since April 2011, encountered an administrative challenge with the introduction of GST. The migration process, designed to streamline the transition from the older VAT system to the new GST framework, involved re-registering entities under the new system. This re-registration required entities to obtain new user IDs and passwords, tasks managed by the U.P. VAT Department as authorized by the GSTN.

In this case, the petitioner’s company followed the stipulated procedure for GST migration. Director Dheeraj Jain signed the application, and the company’s PAN card was provided as required documentation. Upon submission, the petitioner was granted a GST registration number. However, during the process, an error was made: the legal name of the petitioner was mistakenly entered as Dheeraj Jain. Consequently, the GST registration number, along with the associated user ID and password, was linked to Dheeraj Jain’s PAN number rather than the company’s.

This error posed significant operational challenges for the petitioner. Despite utilizing the registration number and password assigned during the migration, the linkage to the incorrect name and PAN number led to complications. The petitioner diligently sought to rectify this error through multiple channels. Repeated requests, reminders, and personal meetings with GST officials were made, all aiming to correct the registration details to reflect the company’s actual name and PAN number.

The persistence of the issue despite these efforts highlights systemic inefficiencies. The Joint Commissioner/Nodal Officer (GST) of the Moradabad Zone, in a letter dated February 3, 2018, acknowledged the petitioner’s grievance regarding the incorrect particulars recorded during the migration process. However, this acknowledgment did not lead to the necessary rectification, leaving the petitioner in a state of administrative limbo.

This prolonged error has not only caused administrative inconvenience but has likely also impacted the company’s operations and compliance under the GST regime. The petitioner’s legal counsel, Sri Rahul Agarwal, presented these facts before the court, arguing the case alongside the State’s Special Counsel, Sri C.B. Tripathi, and the counsel for respondent no.2, Sri Vinay Kumar Pandey. The core of the petitioner’s argument centers on the need for the GST registration to accurately reflect the company’s legal name and PAN number, ensuring compliance and operational integrity within the GST framework.

In the present legal case, Sri Rahul Agarwal, counsel for the petitioner, argued that despite the petitioner’s repeated efforts to correct an error in their GST registration, they were orally informed by the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) that the system of migration had been closed. Consequently, there was no possibility of generating and entering the correct particulars into the GST portal.

The petitioner, a unit of a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and registered under the U.P. VAT Act since April 1, 2011, was required to migrate to the GST regime following its implementation on July 1, 2017. The migration process necessitated generating a new user ID and password, a task delegated to the U.P. VAT Department by the GSTN. The company duly applied for GST migration under the signature of one of its directors, Shri Dheeraj Jain, and appended the company’s PAN card as required documentation. However, during the registration process, an error occurred: the legal name of the petitioner was incorrectly entered as Dheeraj Jain. This mistake linked the GST registration number, user ID, and password to the PAN number of Dheeraj Jain, instead of the company’s PAN number (AACCL0519Q).

Despite successfully completing the migration process using the issued registration number and password, the petitioner faced significant challenges due to the incorrect registration details. Numerous requests, reminders, and personal meetings with GST officials failed to resolve the issue. A letter dated February 3, 2018, from the Joint Commissioner/Nodal Officer (GST) of the Moradabad Zone addressed the petitioner’s grievance but did not rectify the error.

As a result, the petitioner approached the Court seeking a mandamus to command the respondents to correct the registration form by substituting the correct entries to match the company’s PAN number (AACCL0519Q). The petitioner also requested that the migration portal be reopened if necessary to facilitate this correction.

The Court, upon hearing the arguments, saw no reason why the authorities should not open the portal to enable the petitioner to correct the wrongly reported particulars. Sri Vinay Kumar Pandey, counsel for the Union of India, under whose control the GSTN operates, assured the Court that necessary steps would be taken to address the petitioner’s grievance. Additionally, Sri C.B. Tripathi, Special Counsel, raised no objections to the petitioner’s prayer being granted.

In the interest of justice, the Court disposed of the writ petition by commanding the respondents to carry out the necessary corrections in the petitioner’s registration form. This included updating the legal name, business constitution, registration details, user ID, and password to match the company’s PAN number (AACCL0519Q). The Court also instructed that, if required, the portal should be opened to facilitate these corrections. The necessary steps were to be taken within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

In summary, this case underscores the administrative challenges faced by the petitioner due to an error in the GST registration process. Despite multiple efforts to rectify the mistake, the issue remained unresolved, prompting the petitioner to seek judicial intervention. The Court’s decision to command the correction of registration details and potentially reopen the migration portal highlights the necessity of accurate administrative processes and the importance of accessible remedies for such errors. This outcome aims to ensure that the petitioner’s business can operate smoothly under the correct GST registration, aligned with their PAN number, thereby upholding the principles of justice and administrative efficiency.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: