Court denies balance amount reimbursement under GST Act on case-by-case basis, emphasizes compliance with return filing obligations

The court declined to calculate the reimbursement of the balance amount under the GST Act on a case-by-case basis, stating it falls outside the purview of writ jurisdiction. The petitioner was advised to seek other appropriate remedies available in accordance with the law. Regarding the coercive action threatened for not filing GST returns, the court acknowledged the withdrawal of the prayer and disposed of the writ petition, emphasizing the importance of compliance with GST return filing obligations while addressing the reimbursement issue separately.

---

---

Issues:
1. Reimbursement of balance amount under the GST Act.
2. Coercive action against the Petitioner for not filing GST returns.

Analysis:
1. The first issue in this case involves a writ petition seeking a direction for the reimbursement of the balance amount payable under the GST Act. The petitioner requested reimbursement following a court order in W.P.(C) No.12575 of 2018. The petitioner argued that the Executive Engineer (R & B) Division-IV, Bhubaneswar, should reimburse the balance amount. However, the Respondents contended that the task of determining the differential GST is the responsibility of the TDS Authority, not the Executive Engineer. The Court noted that the determination of the amount owed by either party regarding GST deductions became a highly disputed question of fact. The Court declined to calculate the reimbursement on a case-by-case basis, stating that it falls outside the purview of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court advised the petitioner to seek other appropriate remedies available in accordance with the law, leaving the resolution of the reimbursement dispute to other legal proceedings.

2. The second issue pertains to the coercive action threatened against the Petitioner for not filing GST returns for six consecutive months. The Petitioner sought protection from coercive action in response to a notice issued by the CT and GST Officer. The Petitioner clarified that they were not contesting the liability to file returns but gave up the prayer related to the notice. The CT and GST Department highlighted that the Petitioner's liability to file returns was not in question. Consequently, the Petitioner abandoned the prayer related to the coercive action. The Court acknowledged the withdrawal of the prayer and proceeded to dispose of the writ petition accordingly, emphasizing the need for compliance with GST return filing obligations while addressing the reimbursement issue separately.

---