Page 55 - GSTL_16th July 2020_Vol. 38_Part 3

2020 ] VISHNU AROMA POUCHING PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 293
GSTR-3 were filed by the concerned registered person. A copy of Circular No.
7/7/2017-GST, dated 1st September, 2017 issued by the Government of India
was also handed over to the petitioner’s representative, wherein correction of
erroneous details furnished in Form GSTR-3B was referred to. It is the case of the
petitioner that as it has already furnished GSTR-1, it was eagerly waiting for
GSTR-2 and GSTR-3 to be prescribed by the Government; but neither was the
format of GSTR-2 and GSTR-3 prescribed, nor was any provision made for such
return for a few months.
2.16 The petitioner’s case was not that of furnishing erroneous details
in GSTR-3B, but it was a case where the System had crashed. But since the peti-
tioner was assured of correction of GSTR-3B, the petitioner waited for form or
format of GSTR-2 and GSTR-3 being published, and also the period that may be
prescribed by the Government for filing such returns so as to correct and rectify
GSTR-3B of August, 2017. It is the case of the petitioner that it has complied with
the procedural requirements and also the obligation of discharging tax liability
for the subsequent months, that is, September, 2017 and thereafter in accordance
with the law during this period when the petitioners were waiting for the Gov-
ernment’s further circular and clarification about GSTR-2 and GSTR-3. But, in
December, 2017, the Government decided that time period for filing of GSTR-2
and GSTR-3 for July, 2017 to March, 2018 would be worked out by a Committee
of Officers, and accordingly, the previous Circular dated 1-9-2017 was kept in
abeyance till such time. Thus, the assurance given to the petitioner by the Offic-
ers manning the Help Desk did not result in any positive action or development.
The return in form GSTR-3B for August, 2017 continues to have all information
and details as “zero”, and consequently, the entry about discharging tax liability
of August, 2017 in the petitioner’s electronic liability register as required under
Rule 88(2) of the CGST Rules is still not made.
2.17 In this view of the matter, the petitioner had been continuously
approaching all the responsible officers of Ahmedabad-North Commissionerate,
and also the higher officers like the Chairman of the Central Board of Indirect
Taxes and Customs as well as the Assistant Director in charge of the System of
the common portal. The petitioner has submitted letters and representations in
writing to the Chief Commissioner of Ahmedabad Zone, the Assistant Director
of DGGSTI, the Deputy Commissioner of CGST in charge of the petitioner’s fac-
tory, the Nodal Officer in charge of the Nodal Office for sorting out system relat-
ed problems, the Assistant Commissioner in charge of Systems at Gandhinagar,
the Member of the Board at New Delhi etc.; and in all, twenty three request let-
ters and representations have been made by the petitioner in writing from 21-9-
2017 to 1-3-2019. However, the response received by the petitioner till the first
week of March, 2019 was only by way of three letters. A letter dated 21-8-2018
has been received by the petitioner from the Assistant Commissioner (System)
advising the petitioner to follow up the matter with the jurisdictional Commis-
sioner who is the Nodal Officer. A letter dated 10-9-2018 has been received by the
petitioner from the Joint Commissioner requesting the Commissioner of CGST
and Central Excise, Ahmedabad-North for information about action taken on the
petitioner’s representations; and a letter dated 28-10-2018 (wrongly shown as
dated 28-8-2018) from the Deputy Commissioner in charge of the petitioner’s
factory informing the petitioner that the matter stands referred to the higher
formation.
2.18 It is the case of the petitioner that the jurisdictional Deputy Com-
missioner has, vide the above letter dated 28-10-2018, advised the petitioner to
GST LAW TIMES  16th July 2020  55