Abhinab Das vs. The Goods And Services Tax Council, New Delhi

Original PDF →
WP(C)/26561/2023HC OrissaGSTCNR ODHC01064591202324 August 2023Bench: DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI,MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN2 pages

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Page 1 of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 26561 of 2023 Abhinab Das ….. Petitioner Mr. S.A. Mohanty, Advocate Vs. The Goods and Services Tax Council, New Delhi and others ….. Opposite Parties Mr. Diganta Dash, Addl. Standing Counsel Revenue Mr. A. Kedia, Jr. Standing Counsel (Central) CORAM: DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

ORDER 24.08.2023

Order No.

01.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2.

Heard Mr. S.A. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Diganta Dash, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for Revenue and Mr. A. Kedia, learned Jr. Standing Counsel (Central).

3.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties to allow him to make necessary correction in the Form GSTR-3B for the period July 2020 by online or off-line, by opening the GST Portal for limited period or to allow the petitioner to make such correction through manual mode within a stipulated period.

4.

Mr. S.A. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that due to inadvertent error in Form GSTR-3B under Annexure-3, it resulted discrepancy in the Form GSTR 3B return and accordingly, the petitioner was issued with notice in GST ASMT-10 on 10.06.2022 by opposite party no.

5.

On the said date the petitioner came to know about the error and accordingly the petitioner filed its reply in Form GST ASMT 11 by contending therein that the ITC claimed in GSTR 3B for the month of July 2020 is not related to business transaction, but it is relatable to its sister concern, namely M/s Kalinga Electrical Corporation, legal name Shantyilata Das, which was erroneously and accidentally entered against the GSTIN of the petitioner. He further contended that the petitioner wants to make necessary correction and as such, the reply in form GST ASMT 11 is still pending before the authority and no decision has been taken thereon.

5.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court disposes of the writ petition directing the opposite parties to take a decision on the reply submitted by the petitioner in form GST ASMT 11 by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In the event the authorities are satisfied with the contention raised by the petitioner, then the petitioner may be permitted to make necessary correction in accordance with law.

6.

With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Arun

(DR. B.R. SARANGI)

JUDGE

(M.S. RAMAN)

JUDGE

Reproduced from the public record of the Orissa High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.