GST grievance redressal must specifically address the issue raised and explain how it was resolved.

Under the GST grievance redressal framework, a reply should specifically address the complaint raised and explain how it has been resolved; a generic or unexplained status marking is insufficient. The Court noted grievances regarding ineffective handling of credit and payment issues in the electronic cash ledger, and the practical difficulty caused when rectification in later returns was treated as a mismatch between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B. It observed prima facie merit in the submission that the grievance mechanism must respond meaningfully to the precise issue raised. The matter remained pending with directions for further response and re-listing, and no final adjudication was made on the tax grievances.

---

---

Issues: Whether the grievance redressal mechanism under the GST system was functioning effectively, whether issues relating to credit and payments in the electronic cash ledger required response, and whether rectification of mistakes in GST returns was being improperly treated as a discrepancy between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B.

Analysis: The Court recorded the petitioners' grievance that the reply mechanism under the GST circular was not effectively addressing the specific issues raised and that the problem was being marked as resolved without meaningful explanation. The Court also noted complaints regarding non-credit or non-payment in the electronic cash ledger and the practical difficulty caused when rectification in subsequent returns led to notices treating such rectification as mismatch between returns. The respondents were directed to file a status report response to these assertions.

Conclusion: The Court found prima facie merit in the submission that replies under the grievance mechanism should specifically deal with the issue raised and indicate the manner in which it has been resolved. The petitioners were directed to respond to Annexure-7 within seven days, failing which the issue would be treated as resolved and settled.

Final Conclusion: The matter was kept pending for further consideration, with directions for response and re-listing, and no final adjudication was rendered on the substantive tax grievances.

Ratio Decidendi: A grievance redressal response under the GST framework must specifically address the issue raised and explain how it has been resolved.

---