St. Joseph Tea Company Ltd VS State Tax Officer

The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, transitioned to the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act regime and sought registration under the new statutes. However, due to technical glitches in the GST portal, registration was initially unsuccessful. In response, the petitioner filed WP(C) No.768 of 2018, leading to an interim order permitting them to reapply for registration. Eventually, the petitioner obtained fresh registration effective from 09.03.2018, resolving the registration issue. However, the petitioner still faced challenges in complying with statutory. requirements for the period from 01.07.2017 onwards.

The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, transitioned to the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act regime and sought registration under the new statutes. However, technical glitches in the GST portal prevented the petitioner from obtaining registration. Consequently, the petitioner filed WP(C) No.768 of 2018, leading to an interim order allowing the petitioner to reapply for registration. Subsequently, the petitioner was granted fresh registration effective from 09.03.2018. Despite this resolution, the petitioner still faced challenges in meeting statutory requirements for the period from 01.07.2017 to 09.03.2018.

In response to the petitioner’s grievance, the respondents assured that steps would be taken to facilitate compliance with statutory requirements for the mentioned period. Consequently, W.P.(C) No.768 of 2018 was disposed of via Ext.P1 judgment, directing the respondents to make necessary changes in the portal to enable the petitioner to meet statutory requirements prior to 09.03.2018.

However, the petitioner, in the current writ petition, contends that despite the directive in Ext.P1, the respondents failed to implement changes enabling compliance with statutory requirements. Consequently, the petitioner remained unable to upload returns for the period from 01.07.2017 to 09.03.2018 and remit tax.

The case revolves around a registered dealer in Kerala who transitioned from the Kerala Value Added Tax Act to the Goods and Services Tax Act (GST). Despite applying for GST registration, technical glitches in the GST portal delayed their registration. They filed a writ petition (WP(C) No.768 of 2018), leading to an interim order allowing them to reapply. Eventually, they obtained fresh registration from March 9, 2018, onwards. However, they still faced challenges in complying with statutory requirements for the period from July 1, 2017, to March 9, 2018.

The petitioner’s inability to fulfill these requirements persisted, prompting them to seek resolution through legal means. The court directed the authorities (respondents 1 and 2) to facilitate compliance for the aforementioned period. Despite this directive, the respondents failed to implement the necessary changes in the portal to enable compliance.

Consequently, the petitioner couldn’t upload returns or remit taxes for the mentioned period. This led to disruptions in their business operations, as their customers were unable to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC). To navigate this situation, the petitioner continued selling products, with purchasers like ‘Paramount Environ Energies’ paying the value of goods plus GST and claiming ITC.

However, the Department served notices to the petitioner, urging them to complete migration to the GST regime (as per Ext.P3 notice). Moreover, notices in Form GST Asmt-10 were issued to the petitioner’s customers, citing discrepancies in returns. To address these issues, the petitioner submitted a representation (Ext.P4) to the first respondent, seeking technical issue rectification and an opportunity to file monthly returns for the pre-March 9, 2018, period.

The writ petition in question raises concerns about the petitioner’s ongoing struggles with compliance and the adverse impacts on their business due to technical hindrances and administrative discrepancies.

In a case where the petitioner felt aggrieved by the non-consideration of Ext.P4, the court heard arguments from Smt. Nisha John, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. P.R. Sreejith, Senior Standing Counsel.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions made in the writ petition and emphasized that the petitioner had obtained fresh registration on March 9, 2018, as per the interim direction of the court. Therefore, they argued, the respondents were obligated to facilitate compliance with statutory requirements for the period prior to March 9, 2018. However, the petitioner claimed that the respondents failed to act in accordance with the direction provided in Ext.P1 judgment, despite repeated requests. Consequently, the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner’s customers and the refusal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) were deemed illegal by the petitioner’s counsel.

The petitioner’s argument centered on the alleged failure of the respondents to fulfill their obligations as directed by the court in Ext.P1 judgment. They contended that despite obtaining fresh registration as per the court’s interim direction, the respondents did not take appropriate steps to ensure compliance with statutory requirements for the relevant period. This alleged negligence on the part of the respondents resulted in adverse consequences for the petitioner, including the initiation of proceedings against their customers and the denial of Input Tax Credit.

The petitioner sought relief from the court, arguing that the actions taken by the respondents were illegal and violated their rights. They urged the court to consider Ext.P4 and provide appropriate remedies to address the petitioner’s grievances.

In summary, the petitioner, represented by learned Counsel, contended that the respondents’ failure to comply with the court’s directions resulted in adverse consequences for the petitioner and constituted illegal actions. They requested the court to consider Ext.P4 and provide relief accordingly.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: