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

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.Thangaraaj General Store, represented by its Proprietor T.Thangamani, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the Assistant Commissioner (South/Nodal Officer), Karur (3rd respondent), to rectify an error in their GSTIN number registration dated 26.06.2017. The error, occurring during the migration from VAT to GST, resulted in an incorrect business address being recorded, preventing the petitioner from accessing and operating the web portal. The petitioner had previously lodged a complaint and was advised to approach the Nodal Officer. The petitioner's counsel pointed out that the 3rd respondent was incorrectly identified as the Nodal Officer, leading to the suo motu impleadment of the Nodal Officer from the Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai (4th respondent).

Held

The Court acknowledged the petitioner's grievance regarding an error in their GSTIN registration particulars, specifically the business address, which occurred during the migration from VAT to GST. This error prevented the petitioner from accessing the web portal. The Court noted the petitioner's submission that the 3rd respondent was not the correct Nodal Officer, leading to the suo motu impleadment of the 4th respondent, the Nodal Officer from the Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The learned Special Government Pleader, representing the revenue, undertook that the 4th respondent would consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Recording this undertaking, the Court directed the 4th respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation within the stipulated timeframe. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct the rectification of an erroneous GSTIN registration particulars, specifically the business address, that prevents the petitioner from accessing the GST portal and claiming input tax credits. 2. Whether the appropriate authority for rectifying such errors has been correctly identified and approached. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that an error in their business address during the GST migration has rendered their GSTIN registration non-operational, hindering their ability to conduct business and claim input tax credits. They sought a direction for rectification and acceptance of accounts without late fees, penalties, or interest. The petitioner also contended that the initially named 3rd respondent was not the correct Nodal Officer for this purpose. Revenue's Contention: The learned Special Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the newly impleaded 4th respondent (Nodal Officer) would dispose of the petitioner's representation within three weeks of receiving a copy of the court order.