Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1482 of 2018 Petitioner :- Jhas Industries Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanyukta Singh,Shubham Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Anant Kumar Tiwari,Ashok Singh,Om Prakash Srivastava Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
List has been revised. None appeared on behalf of the respondent no. 6. However, Shri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ashok Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4, learned Standing Counsel for the State (GST) Authorities are present.
Present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction upon the respondent no. 6 to rectify the mistake in the GSTIN allocated to the petitioner by the GSTN.
In short, undisputedly the facts as they emerge upon the pleadings are that the business of Jhas Industries was a proprietorship concern of the petitioner's father i.e. Shri Rakesh Jha. According to the petitioner, on 16.05.2017, during the VAT regime, the aforesaid sole propriety concern changed hands. The present petitioner Alok Jha who is the son of the erstwhile proprietor Shri Rakesh Jha became the proprietor of the business Jhas Industries. Upon enforcement of the GST of Central GST Act, 2017 and UP GST Act, 2017 w.e.f 01.07.2017, a provisional GSTIN was generated by the GST Network in terms of Rule 24 of the UP GST Rules, 2017. Plainly, the petitioner (Alok Jha) enrolled on the common portal validating his E- mail address and mobile number in accordance with Rule 24(1)(a) of the UP GST Rules, 2017. It resulted in generation of 15 digit provisional GSTIN according to the format regulated by Rule 10(1) of the Rules. Thus, the first two characters of the 15 digit GSTIN were the characters allotted by way of State Code. The next ten characters of the GSTIN should have been the PAN number of the petitioner Alok Jha and the next two characters disclosed, the entity code of the business and the last character is the check sum, as prescribed.
There is no dispute between the parties with respect to the correctness of the first two and last three characters of the 15 digit provisional GSTIN. As to the middle 10 characters, which according to the petitioner should have been the PAN number of the present petitioner being 'ABFPJ5438B', due to some error at the end of respondent no. 6, instead of those ten characters, the PAN of the erstwhile proprietor Rakesh Jha 'AEBPJ7284A' have been mentioned. Realizing the mistake committed by the GST portal, the petitioner appears to have written to his Assessing Authority on 22.05.2017, itself. A copy of that letter is enclosed as part of Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition. In any case, the petitioner also appears to have lodged his grievance on the online helpdesk on the GST portal, on 05.06.2017 which also appears to have been responded to on the same date. Thus, it cannot be disputed that before the GST Act came to be enforced, the petitioner had acted with due diligence and informed the concerned regarding the mistake in the provisional GSTIN allotted to him.
It is also not disputed that the matter remained pending and no correction was made. Thereafter on 24.08.2017, the petitioner appears to have applied for fresh registration as its business was being hindered on account of the above mistake in the provisional GSTIN. That application was moved under Rule 24(2) of the Rules. It has been allowed. Thus, there is no dispute with respect to the period beginning 24.08.2017.
With respect to the period 01.07.2017 to 23.08.2017, the petitioner is not being allowed the benefit of transition ITC as also he is at loss in availing ITC on purchase as also its purchasers are not getting consequential benefit as the petitioner is unable to file its return under the GST regime.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, while the revenue authorities continue to contend that the petitioner did not adopt the correct course while taking fresh registration, we find the objection is hyper-technical to merit acceptance by this Court. Once it is undisputed that the provisional GSTIN was to be generated by the GST Network upon verification of the E- mail and the mobile number submitted by the petitioner, the mistake in data collection with respect to the correct PAN remains attributable to the GST Network and not to the petitioner. The mistake is in the nature of a mistake apparent from the record, inasmuch if the petitioner had got his registration under the VAT Act corrected on 16.05.2017, as claimed. It was under no further obligation to inform GST Authority about the same.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a positive direction upon the respondent no. 6 to make due verification of the aforesaid fact from the Assessing Authority / erstwhile Assessment Authority of the petitioner under the UP VAT Act, 2008. If the registration certificate of the petitioner stood amended to the effect, the petitioner Alok Jha was recorded as the proprietor of the business Jhas Industries as on 13.06.2017, the provisional GSTIN of the petitioner that became effective on 01.07.2017 shall be corrected to record the PAN number of the petitioner Alok Jha 'ABFPJ5438B'. The above exercise may be completed within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this order, before the respondent no. 6.
It is also clarified that in that event all the invoices issued by the petitioner bearing the wrong provisional GSTIN and all declarations, returns etc. filed by the petitioner disclosing that number would stand corrected, on deemed basis. Further, the petitioner shall also be entitled to the benefit of our decision in Writ Tax No. 477 of 2021, dated 15.09.2021.
Order Date :- 21.9.2021 Saurabh