M/S.Thangaraaj General Store vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.Thangaraaj General Store, inadvertently entered the address of a related business, M/s.Revathi Agencies, when migrating from the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 to the GST regime. This error resulted in the GST number assigned to M/s.Thangaraaj General Store becoming inoperative, preventing the filing of annual returns. The petitioner sought rectification of this mistake through correspondence with the tax authorities starting from December 6, 2017. After previous litigation led to a direction to approach the nodal officer, the nodal officer rejected the request via an order dated October 14, 2020, citing a lack of timely action and no specific court direction. This rejection order is under challenge.

Held

The Court held that the mistake of entering the wrong address was an inadvertent, non-technical error, which the GST Council itself had acknowledged as occurring during the migration to the GST regime. The Court found that the petitioner had approached the respondents well in time for correction, starting correspondence from December 6, 2017, which was before the last date for migration application (February 28, 2019). Therefore, the respondents' stand that the petitioner did not act within time was incorrect. Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's request was quashed. The fourth respondent (Nodal Officer) was directed to forward the petitioner's application to GSTIN and facilitate the rectification of the error within eight weeks from the receipt of the order. The Court explicitly stated that the writ petition stands allowed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 14.10.2020 passed by the fourth respondent (Nodal Officer) is liable to be quashed? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the error in entering the address was an inadvertent, non-technical mistake that occurred during the migration to the GST regime. They argued that they had diligently pursued rectification with the authorities since December 6, 2017, well within any reasonable stipulated time, and that the respondents were incorrect in claiming the petitioner did not act within time. The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned order and direction to rectify the GSTIN particulars and accept accounts with input tax credits without late fees, penalties, or interest. Respondents' arguments: The respondents, through the Special Government Pleader, argued that the impugned order does not warrant interference and that the writ petition should be dismissed. They maintained that the petitioner's request was not possible of compliance due to not acting within the stipulated time and that no specific direction had been passed by the Court previously.