Ibibo Group Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

W.P.(C)/1354/2021HC DelhiGSTCNR DLHC01008027202116 February 2021Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA3 pages

For Petitioner: Mr. B L Narasimhan, Mr. Karan Sachdev and Mr. Agrim Arora, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSC with Mr. Abhishek Khanna, GP. Mr. Amit Bansal, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms. Vipasha Mishra, Advocate for R-2 to 4

AI SummaryRemanded

Held

The Court accepted the revenue's submission that the technical issues preventing the filing of statements under Section 52(3) of the CGST Act, read with Rule 67 of the CGST Rules, had been resolved. The Court directed the petitioners to approach a specific GSTN officer on February 17, 2021, at 11:00 AM, to attempt filing the statement. This officer was tasked with assisting the petitioners in uploading the statement. If, for any technical reason, the statement could not be uploaded online, the officer was to accept it manually and forward it to the concerned Commissionerate. Regarding the potential levy of penalty and interest due to the delay, the Court observed that if such levies were imposed, the petitioners could approach the concerned Commissionerate with a representation explaining the reasons for the delay. Such representations were to be considered and disposed of in accordance with the law, taking into account the circumstances noted in the order. If the decision on the representation was adverse, the petitioners were free to pursue their legal remedies.

Facts

Two petitioners, ibibo Group Private Limited and MakeMyTrip (India) Private Limited, filed writ petitions before the Delhi High Court. Their grievance was that errors in the common GSTN portal prevented them from filing statements in compliance with Section 52(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, read with Rule 67 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The revenue, through its counsel, stated that the issues had been resolved and the petitioners should now be able to file the statements successfully. The petitioners' counsel sought time to verify this claim. The Court took the revenue's statement on record and issued specific directions for the petitioners to attempt filing.

Key Issues

1. Whether errors in the common GSTN portal prevented the petitioners from filing their statements in compliance with Section 52(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, read with Rule 67 of the CGST Rules, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that technical glitches on the GSTN portal hindered their ability to file the mandatory statements within the stipulated time. Revenue's contention: The revenue contended that the issues causing the non-filing had been rectified and the portal was now functional for the petitioners to upload their statements. 2. Whether the petitioners would be liable for penalty and interest due to the delay in filing statements caused by portal errors? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners raised a concern that they might be subjected to penalties and interest due to the delay in filing, which was attributable to the portal's technical issues. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific argument from the revenue on this point.

Sections Cited

Section 52(3), Rule 67

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

W.P.(C) 1354/2021

W.P.(C) 1383/2021

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

W.P.(C) 1354/2021 & W.P.(C) 1383/2021 Page 1 of 3 $~1 & 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1354/2021 IBIBO GROUP PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. B L Narasimhan, Mr. Karan Sachdev and Mr. Agrim Arora, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSC with Mr. Abhishek Khanna, GP. Mr. Amit Bansal, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms. Vipasha Mishra, Advocate for R-2 to 4. + W.P.(C) 1383/2021 MAKEMYTRIP (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. B L Narasimhan, Mr. Karan Sachdev and Mr. Agrim Arora, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Mr. Raghav Nagar, Advocate. Mr, Amit Gupta, GP. Mr. Amit Bansal, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms. Vipasha Mishra, Advocate for R-2 to 4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

16.02.

2021 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delh

The judgment continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free account Sign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

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