Union Of India VS  Tax Bar Association

In a recent legal matter concerning the jurisdiction of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, specifically in Jodhpur, the court addressed a crucial aspect pertaining to the extension of deadlines for submitting returns. It’s important to note that the court’s intervention was not aimed at undermining or interfering with the order previously passed by the esteemed High Court. Rather, the focus lay in selectively staying a specific provision of the order, namely the extension of the deadline for submitting returns.

This particular decision was influenced significantly by the comprehensive statement delivered by Mr. Tushar Mehta, an esteemed and learned Solicitor General, during the proceedings. Mehta provided invaluable insights regarding the prevailing situation, particularly emphasizing that a nominal fee of Rs. 200 per day was being levied for late filing of returns. Crucially, he assured the court that this fee would be subject to refund pending the outcome of a writ petition, thereby alleviating concerns regarding undue financial burdens on the parties involved.

Furthermore, Mehta’s assurances extended beyond mere financial considerations. He went on to reassure the court that both Central and State authorities, empowered by relevant legislation, would exercise restraint in invoking penal powers with regards to this specific matter. This assurance serves as a pivotal reassurance, fostering a conducive environment for compliance without the looming specter of punitive measures.

In essence, the court’s decision reflects a delicate balancing act, striving to uphold the sanctity of the High Court’s order while also taking into account the practical implications and concerns raised by Mehta. By selectively staying the extension of the deadline for submitting returns and incorporating Mehta’s assurances regarding fees and penal powers, the court seeks to achieve a harmonious resolution that serves the interests of justice while ensuring procedural fairness for all parties involved.

In a recent legal proceeding, the court has been apprised by learned counsel representing the respondents regarding the severe limitation in the capacity for online processing of GST (Goods and Services Tax) applications. It has been brought to the court’s attention that the volume of applications far exceeds the existing capacity, thereby creating a significant bottleneck in the processing system.

Acknowledging the gravity of this issue, the court has issued a directive to the petitioner, urging them to address this challenge promptly and proactively. The petitioner is tasked with finding a viable solution that aligns with the existing processing capacity as expeditiously as possible. This directive underscores the court’s recognition of the pressing need to resolve the bottleneck in the online processing system for GST applications.

Importantly, the court has emphasized that this interim directive is not intended to preempt or interfere with any subsequent actions or decisions that may be taken by the High Court regarding the specific circumstances of this case. It is a temporary measure aimed at addressing the immediate concern of the processing capacity without encroaching upon the jurisdiction or prerogatives of the High Court.

Consequently, the Special Leave Petition in question has been disposed of in accordance with the directives and considerations outlined above. Additionally, any pending applications related to this matter are also deemed disposed of, thereby providing clarity and closure to the legal proceedings in this context.

In summary, the court’s decision reflects a pragmatic approach to addressing the challenges posed by the limited capacity for online processing of GST applications, while also respecting the jurisdictional boundaries and prerogatives of the High Court. It underscores the importance of efficiency and practicality in the administration of justice while ensuring due process and fairness for all parties involved.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: