2018 (10) TMI 1616 - HC - GST

GST Transition Challenges: Nodal Officer Mandated to Review Representations and Resolve Technical Input Tax Credit Issues

HC directed petitioners to approach Nodal Officer regarding GST transition challenges, technical glitches in Input Tax Credit, and assessment order ... Unable to form upload TRANS-1 - migration to GST Regime - transitional credit - Held that:- The petitioner-company is therefore relegated before the concerned Nodal Officer (Commissioner) at Bengaluru, before whom the representations already filed by the petitioners-company or which may be now filed afresh with the relevant evidence will be decided by the said Nodal Officer and all the issues relating to administration and technical difficulties faced by the petitioner as raised in the writ petitions will be decided on merits - petition disposed off. Issues:Challenges faced by petitioners during transition to GST regime, non-reflection of Input Tax Credit in database, assessment orders challenged, delay in decision on representations, appointment of Nodal Officers, jurisdiction of High Court, directions for petitioners to approach Nodal Officer, timeline for resolution, right to appeal, right to seek legal remedy against prejudicial orders.Analysis:1. Transition Challenges:The petitioners, a company, raised concerns about practical and technical difficulties encountered during the transition from the VAT/Service Tax Regime to the GST Regime in India effective from 01.07.2017. They highlighted issues related to online uploading of Forms and Declarations like TRANS-1, citing technical glitches. Consequently, the Input Tax Credit (ITC) due to the petitioners under the previous tax regime was not reflected in the Respondent-Government's database. Additionally, the assessment orders issued by the 7th Respondent - Asst. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore, were also contested in the writ petitions.2. Delay in Decision on Representations:Despite representations made to the Respondent- Commissioner, GST, Bengaluru, the petitioners' counsel emphasized that the representations were not decided upon by the Jurisdictional Officer after providing a proper opportunity for a hearing to the petitioner-assessee.3. Appointment of Nodal Officers:The Respondent- Commercial Tax Department's counsel mentioned the appointment of separate Nodal Officers at the Commissioner level by the Central Government in all states. These officers have the authority to address grievances regarding technical and administrative challenges faced by the assessee and can issue appropriate orders. However, compliance with filing requisite returns and declarations is essential for the petitioners.4. High Court's Jurisdiction and Directions:The High Court declined to entertain the writ petitions on their merits, directing the petitioners to approach the concerned Nodal Officer (Commissioner) in Bengaluru. The Nodal Officer will review the representations submitted by the petitioners, considering relevant evidence, and decide on all issues related to administrative and technical difficulties raised in the writ petitions. The petitioners must comply with the directions of the Nodal Officer, including filing necessary returns and declarations as per applicable Rules, Circulars, and Notifications.5. Timeline and Right to Appeal:The petitioners were instructed to appear before the concerned authority on a specified date, allowing a two-month period for the Nodal Authority to issue appropriate orders. The judgment also granted the assessee the right to appeal under Section 107 of the KGST Act against the impugned assessment orders within four weeks without raising objections of limitation.6. Legal Remedies Against Prejudicial Orders:In the event of a prejudicial order by the Nodal Officer not aligning with the provisions of the Act or relevant Circulars and Notifications, the petitioners retained the liberty to seek appropriate legal remedies, including invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against such reasoned orders.7. Conclusion:The writ petitions were disposed of without costs, and ancillary applications did not survive for consideration post the main petition's disposal. The judgment provided clear directives for the petitioners to address their grievances through the designated Nodal Officer, ensuring a fair resolution process and preserving their rights to appeal and seek legal remedies against adverse decisions.