JOINT COMMISSIONER Vs. ALPHA TRADING COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenges in these batch of appeals are against a common interim order passed by the Single Judge, dated 3 rd February,2020. Relying on various earlier judgments passed by this court in identical situation, the learned Single Judge observed that, the respondent officers need to take steps to facilitate the writ petitioners for uploading 'FORM GST TRAN-1', in compliance with the directions contained in the earlier judgments.

(2.) But, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, the direction in the earlier judgments was only to the extent of permitting the respective writ petitioners therein to approach the Nodal Officer appointed on the basis of Circular No.39/13/2018-GST, dated 03.04.2018. In those judgments the Nodal Officer was directed to consider the applications if any submitted by the writ petitioners therein, within two weeks and to take appropriate steps as stipulated in the Circular. It is submitted that, in the cases at hand, such applications were already verified by the Nodal Officer and reports were submitted to the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) and ultimately the IT Grievance Redressal Committee had declined the relief on the basis that, the petitioners herein have failed even in attempting to upload the requisite form within the time stipulated. Therefore it is contended that, the observations made in the interim order impugned in these appeals, that the 'FORM GST TRAN-1' should be permitted to be uploaded by the petitioners herein, cannot be legally sustainable. In other words, learned counsel for the appellants points out that, there exists a factual difference in the situation between the earlier judgments and the present cases.

(3.) We take note of the fact that, challenge in these appeals are against an interim order. The said order does not contain any specific directions. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents in the writ petition was only directed to get instruction with respect to the alleged non-compliance of the directions contained in the earlier judgments. It is well within liberty of the appellants herein to point out the above mentioned aspects before the learned Single Judge and to seek appropriate modification of the interim order, if found necessary. We do not find anything to presume that, the learned Single Judge will not consider such submissions, if made with supporting materials. Of course, contention of the appellants will be subject to what the respondents have to say on the issue, before the Single Judge.