2021 (2) TMI 1303 - HC - GST

Reimbursement of balance amount payable under the GST Act - Cancellation of registration of petitioner - non-filing of GST returns for a continuous period of six months - HELD THAT - The question whether in fact any amount is owed to the Petitioner by Opposite Party No.1 on account of GST deducted from its bills or vice versa has become a highly disputed question of fact. The claim of the Petitioner ultimately in simple terms is one for money which it seeks as reimbursement from Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2. It is not possible for this Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to calculate on a case by case basis which component of the work executed by the Petitioner for Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 is amenable for reimbursement on account of GST and which is not. This being a disputed question of fact the Court declines to undertake this exercise in the writ jurisdiction and leaves it to the Petitioner to seek other appropriate remedies available to the Petitioner in accordance with law. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Reimbursement of balance amount under the GST Act.
2. Coercive action against the Petitioner for not filing GST returns.

Analysis:
1. The first issue in this case involves a writ petition seeking a direction for the reimbursement of the balance amount payable under the GST Act. The petitioner requested reimbursement following a court order in W.P.(C) No.12575 of 2018. The petitioner argued that the Executive Engineer (R & B) Division-IV, Bhubaneswar, should reimburse the balance amount. However, the Respondents contended that the task of determining the differential GST is the responsibility of the TDS Authority, not the Executive Engineer. The Court noted that the determination of the amount owed by either party regarding GST deductions became a highly disputed question of fact. The Court declined to calculate the reimbursement on a case-by-case basis, stating that it falls outside the purview of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court advised the petitioner to seek other appropriate remedies available in accordance with the law, leaving the resolution of the reimbursement dispute to other legal proceedings.

2. The second issue pertains to the coercive action threatened against the Petitioner for not filing GST returns for six consecutive months. The Petitioner sought protection from coercive action in response to a notice issued by the CT and GST Officer. The Petitioner clarified that they were not contesting the liability to file returns but gave up the prayer related to the notice. The CT and GST Department highlighted that the Petitioner's liability to file returns was not in question. Consequently, the Petitioner abandoned the prayer related to the coercive action. The Court acknowledged the withdrawal of the prayer and proceeded to dispose of the writ petition accordingly, emphasizing the need for compliance with GST return filing obligations while addressing the reimbursement issue separately.