Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040004572024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/157/2024 M/s A2Z Infra Engineering Ltd represented by its authorized reprsenteative Mr Janardan Mani Tripathi, Pasighat, Banskota Colony, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The Union of India and 6 Ors represented by the Secretary to the Govt of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Block, New Delhi 110001 2:The Union of India Age: 0 Occupation : represented by the Under Secretary to the Govt of India (Revenue) Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue New Block New Delhi 110001 3:The GST Council Age: 0 Occupation : represented by the Chairperson Ministry of Finance North Block New Delhi 110001 4:Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs Age: 0 Occupation : represented by the Chairperson North Block Central Secretariat New Delhi 110001 Page No.# 2/4 5:GST Network Age: 0 Occupation : represented by the Chairperson Ministry of Finance North Block New Delhi 110001 6:Commissioner / Joint Secretary in the Board Age: 0 Occupation : Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs North Block Central Secretariat New Delhi 110001 7:The Assistant Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Central GST and Cx Itanagar Sector A Naharlagun Arunachal Pradesh 79111 Advocate for the Petitioner : T Tsering, P Agarwal Advocate for the Respondent : Marto Kato, M K Boro,DSGI -BEFORE- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA 21.01.2025 Heard Ms. S. Bisht, learned counsel, on instruction, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. K. Boro, learned Standing counsel for the CBIC representing respondent Nos. 4, 6 & 7 and Mr. K. Teri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI. 2. The grievance of the petitioner, in brief, is that the filing of form GSTR-3 and GSTR-2 returns was not operationalised. It is projected that Page No.# 3/4 by several notifications issued from time to time, it was projected by the respondent authorities that the time limit for furnishing of returns under the said form shall be subsequently modified. However, by virtue of notification No. 49/2019-CT, dated 09.10.2019, the respondent authorities had done away with filing of FORM GSTR-3. Accordingly, it is projected that the Input Tax Credit (for short, ‘ITC’), which could have been shown in GSTR-3 could not be disclosed and availed by the petitioner. Thereafter, show-cause notice dated 21.07.2023 was issued on the petitioner which is projected to be contrary to the provisions of Rule 142 (1) of the GST Rules and therefore, by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the said Notification No. 49/2019-CT dated 09.10.2019 and has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to act as per the Notification No. 72/2017-CT dated 29.12.2017 and for a direction to accept the GSTR-3 (B) Return. 3. The learned Standing counsel for the CBIC has submitted that the last date of submission of the GSTR returns for financial year ending on 31.03.2018 was 23.04.2019, however, the petitioner had filed its returns only on 28.01.2020. It is submitted that nonetheless, by virtue of notification issued under Finance Act No. 2 of 2024, the last date of filing of returns was extended till 30.11.2021. Accordingly, it is submitted that as the Show-Cause Notice has already been issued to the petitioner, the petitioner may file additional Show-Cause reply, if so desired, annexing thereto all the documents on which he intends to rely upon, which would be considered by the competent authority while passing the Order-in- Original in connection with the said Show-Cause Notice dated 21.07.2023. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Page No.# 4/4 petitioner has already submitted reply to the Show-Cause Notice dated 21.07.2023. 5. In view of the statement made by the learned Standing counsel for the CBIC, the Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by granting the liberty to the petitioner to file additional reply, if any, within a period of 30 days from the date of this order and annex thereto the documents which the petitioner intends to rely upon. 6. Thereupon, the competent authority i.e. Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX, Itanagar (respondent no.7) or any of the competent authority shall give a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to attend the personal hearing and thereupon, passed the Order-in-Original in accordance with law. 7. Therefore, without entering into the merit of the issues raised in the writ petition and on the basis of the statement made by the learned Standing counsel for CBIC, this writ petition stands partly allowed on the terms as indicated above. 8. It is made clear that as the merit of the case has not been entered into, this order is not intended to be cited as a precedent. JUDGE Comparing Assistant