BANERJI MEMORIAL CLUB Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (TECH)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a club which was holding a service tax registration during the pre-GST period. Subsequent to the implementation of GST with effect from 01.07.2017, the petitioner had sought for permission to migrate to the GST regime as provided under Section 25 of the CGST Act. It is relevant to note that the petitioner was also allotted a provisional GSTIN. Thereafter, since it was not able to complete the registration process during the time granted by the department, the provisional GSTIN that was allotted to them was cancelled. On account of of that, the petitioner was not able to file the GST returns from July 2017 onwards. The petitioner, however, approached the respondents for the allotment of a regular GSTIN and obtained one in July 2018. In the meanwhile, through a Notification dated 06.08.2018, assessees were given an opportunity to prefer their application for migration to the GST if they had not already done so, on or before 31.08.2018. Acting on the said Notification, the petitioner preferred an application (Ext.P2) for migration to the GST on 09.08.2018. While the application for migration had to indicate the provisional GSTIN that was earlier granted to the petitioner, the petitioner inadvertently showed the new GSTIN that had been allotted to him in July 2018. This led to the respondents taking a stand that the migration to the GST to cover the period from July 2017 onwards could not be accepted. In the communication issued to the petitioner, which is impugned in this writ petition, the stand of the respondents is only that the application for migration was belated. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the application itself was dated 09.08.2018, well before the last date of 31.08.2018 that was permitted by the Notification dated 06.08.2018. It would appear however that it was on account of the confusion created by the erroneous furnishing of the provisional GSTIN that a delay was occasioned while considering the application, which was ultimately rejected by the respondents. The prayer in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P7 communication issued by the 2nd respondent, and to direct the respondents to grant registration under Ext.P1 Notification to the petitioner so as to enable him to take transitional credit for the period from July 2017 onwards.

(2.) A statement as well as an additional statement have been filed on behalf of respondents 1, 2 and 4, wherein, the sequence of events leading to the rejection of the application preferred by the petitioner is narrated. The principal contention in justification of Ext.P7 order is that it was on account of the furnishing of erroneous GSTIN by the petitioner that the migration process could not be completed within time, and therefore had to be rejected by the respondents.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing counsel for the respondents.