Court orders 2nd respondent to decide on GST grievance representation within 2 months, allows virtual hearing.

The court directed the 2nd respondent to decide on the representation regarding a GST grievance after providing a hearing to the petitioner within two months, allowing for a virtual hearing due to the Covid-19 situation. The court emphasized compliance with the law and noted the absence of prima facie proof of receipt of the representation. The writ petition was disposed of without commenting on the merits, ensuring the petitioner's opportunity for a hearing as per legal requirements.

---

---

Issues:
1. Delay in deciding representation Ext.P5 regarding GST grievance.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to decide Ext.P5, relating to a GST grievance. The petitioner's company had shipped Zinc Ingot to Kuwait, with GST charged at 18%. However, due to errors in Form GSTR 1, the port code and GST payment details were incorrect. Despite efforts to rectify online and complaints to authorities, the issue persisted. The 5th respondent responded, instructing the petitioner to register complaints with ICEGATE Portal and the Commissioner of Port of Export. The petitioner also lodged complaints on the GST grievance redressal portal. The court noted the absence of prima facie proof of receipt of Ext.P5 but directed the 2nd respondent to decide on the representation after providing a hearing to the petitioner, emphasizing compliance with the law.

The learned counsel for the respondents acknowledged the lack of proof of receipt of Ext.P5 but expressed willingness to address the matter upon receiving a proper direction within a reasonable timeframe. Respondent No.3 clarified their non-involvement as Ext.P5 was directed to respondent No.2. After hearing the arguments and reviewing the case documents, the court disposed of the writ petition without commenting on the merits. The court issued a directive to the 2nd respondent to decide on Ext.P5 dated 06.02.2020, ensuring the petitioner's opportunity for a hearing as per legal requirements. Additionally, considering the Covid-19 situation, the court allowed for a virtual hearing and mandated the resolution within two months. The writ petition was thus concluded with this decision.

---