M/S. Angel Shipping vs. State Of Rajasthan

Held

The Court held that the concerned respondent authority must immediately allow the petitioner-firm to log in to the GST portal to complete the migration process, upload its returns, and deposit the due tax. The Court's reasoning was based on the factual matrix presented and the precedent set by the Allahabad High Court in M/s Metro Institutes of Medical Sciences Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. The Court found that the petitioner's inability to file returns and discharge their GST liability was due to issues beyond their control, stemming from the administrative process of migration. The Court did not explicitly address the issues concerning late fees, input tax credit beyond the prescribed period, interest, or the benefit of Section 34 beyond the prescribed period, as the primary focus was on enabling the petitioner to complete the migration and filing process. The operative direction was to allow the petitioner to log in and complete the necessary steps for compliance.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shri Dayalu Enterprises, a firm engaged in shipping and logistics, was registered under the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003. Upon the introduction of GST on July 1, 2017, the petitioner enrolled on the common portal and received a provisional GST registration number and login credentials on June 28, 2017. However, an email on September 30, 2017, indicated a mismatch in the Permanent Account Number (PAN) details with the CBDT database. Despite re-submitting documents, the petitioner could not log in to the GST portal as the migration deadline had passed. The petitioner then approached jurisdictional officers and the GSTN helpdesk, which directed them back to the nodal officer. The petitioner contends that due to this inability to log in and complete migration, they could not file returns or pay taxes from July 2017 onwards, risking adverse financial consequences due to administrative delays.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permanently migrate the petitioner's firm under the same GSTIN and activate its login ID on the common portal? 2. Whether the petitioner should be allowed to file returns without the levy of late fees under Section 47 of the CGST/RGST Act, given the circumstances preventing timely filing? 3. Whether the petitioner can avail input tax credit despite late filing of returns beyond the period prescribed under Section 16(4) of the CGST/RGST Act? 4. Whether the petitioner should be exempted from interest under Section 50 of the CGST/RGST Act? 5. Whether the petitioner can avail the benefit of Section 34 of the CGST/RGST Act beyond the prescribed period? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that due to the respondents' failure to facilitate their migration and login to the GST portal, they were unable to discharge their GST liabilities, including filing returns and paying taxes from July 2017. They relied on the judgment in M/s Metro Institutes of Medical Sciences Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. Respondent's arguments: The respondent opposed the petitioner's submissions but could not refute the factual matrix or the applicability of the cited judgment.