2019 (6) TMI 936

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....benefit of Rs. 5,21 crores to the petitioner no.2 which is not reflected in the electronic credit ledger for the State of Gujarat. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to extend the time for filing of GSTR - 38 after the benefit of Rs. 5.21 crores is granted to the petitioner. (c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to refrain from demanding payment of taxes under the Act, till the resolution of the issues raised by the petitioner by the respondents. (d) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of prohibition directing the respondents to not impose / waive any late fee, interest and penalty on the petitioner ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he transferee. 2. NOTICE, returnable on 11.10.2018. Direct service is permitted." 3 We take notice of the fact that identical petitions have been preferred in the High Court of Bombay and Delhi. We deem fit to quote the order passed by the High Court of Delhi dated 23rd January 2019 in the Writ Petition (C) No.8691 of 2018: "1. At the outset, it was submitted that the petitioners have filed the TRAN1 in this case. Electronic credit ledger account is submitted only yesterday. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this development was consequent upon the Bombay High Court direction in W.P.(C) 2229/2018 Indusind Media Communications Ltd. vs. Union of India which had noticed the previous order of this Court, parti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... at Mumbai (Maharashtra) to its locations in Delhi, Gujarat and Karnataka subject to the satisfaction of the Commissioner having jurisdiction over those locations. We are not giving any directions to the Commissioners of Delhi, Gujarat and Karnataka as in terms of Section 25(4) of the Act each registered location/branch is a distinct person. Therefore, on the above basis of being distinct persons under the Act, they have in cases of Delhi locations and Karnataka location (as informed by Shri. Nankani, the learned Senior Counsel), the Petitioner has filed separate Petitions. Moreover, the Commissioners at separate locations/branches (except Mumbai) are not parties before us. Therefore, appropriate order from the jurisdictional Commissioners ....