Himachal Soft Drinks vs. The UOI And Others

Held

The Court held that since the petitioner had made a representation to the concerned Authority, it was incumbent upon the Authority to pass an order on that representation. The Court did not make any observations on the merits of the case regarding the rectification of returns or the consequential relief. However, it directed that the Authority concerned must take an appropriate call on the petitioner's representation within a period of four weeks from the date of the order. The Court disposed of the petition with this direction, without delving into the substantive issues raised by the petitioner regarding the rectification of GSTR-3B returns under Rule 88A or the re-adjustment of ledger balances.

Facts

The petitioner, Himachal Soft Drinks, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents to allow rectification of their GSTR-3B returns. The petitioner claimed the rectification was necessary due to a bonafide error by their accountant and that the issue was revenue neutral. They had approached the concerned Authority with a representation (Annexure P-5) but had not received any action. The respondents argued that the petitioner had not invoked the relevant statutory provisions for rectification. The High Court noted that the petitioner had made a representation and that the Authority was duty-bound to pass an order on it.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow rectification of GSTR-3B returns filed in accordance with Rule 88A of CGST Rules, 2017, on the grounds of revenue neutrality and bonafide error? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide consequential relief on account of rectified returns and re-adjusted balances in the Electronic Credit Ledger and Electronic Cash Ledger? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that they had approached the concerned Authority for rectification of their GSTR-3B returns, but no action had been taken. They sought to rectify the returns due to a bonafide error by their accountant, asserting that the matter was revenue neutral. Respondents' contentions: Respondents No. 2 to 4 argued that the petitioner had not invoked the relevant statutory provisions for rectification as provided in the statute, despite the existence of such provisions.