Court dismisses writ petition seeking access to GST portal for uploading returns; lack of evidence cited

The court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking access to the GST portal for uploading returns and acceptance of revised returns. The court found no merit in the petitioner's claim, noting the lack of evidence supporting the alleged difficulties in accessing the portal and the inability to file returns. It was clarified that the portal only allowed for filing GSTR 4, not for composition, as claimed by the petitioner. The court deemed the petitioner's contentions baseless and devoid of merit, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

---

---

Issues:
Petitioner seeking access to GST portal for uploading returns and requesting acceptance of revised returns from 2017 to March 2018.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a taxpayer under the CGST and SGST Act 2017, approached the court seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents to allow access to the GST portal for uploading returns. The petitioner, a registered works contractor under the KVAT Act before the introduction of GST, claimed to have faced difficulties in accessing the portal since March 2018. Despite requesting rectification of return, no action was taken by the department. The petitioner provided evidence of filing income tax returns.

On the other hand, the Government Pleader stated that the petitioner's request for composition was forwarded to the Joint Commissioner, SGSTD, Kannur. It was revealed that the portal only allowed filing of GSTR 4, not for composition. The petitioner was informed of this limitation. The Government Pleader argued that there was no proof of the petitioner's GST portal being blocked after March 31, 2018.

After hearing both parties, the court found no merit in the petitioner's submission. The court noted the lack of evidence showing that the petitioner had actually opted for the portal. It was clarified that the portal did not permit composition and only allowed for filing GSTR 4. The court highlighted that the petitioner failed to provide any explanation or proof regarding the alleged inability to access the portal or why the returns could not have been accepted. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, deeming the petitioner's contentions baseless and devoid of merit, with no grounds for interference established.

---