2021(02)LCX0115

Delhi High Court

IBIBO GROUP PRIVATE LIMITED, MAKEMYTRIP (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED

Versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

W.P.(C) 1354/2021, W.P.(C) 1383/2021 decided on 16/02/2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

 W.P.(C) 1354/2021

IBIBO GROUP PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. B L Narasimhan, Mr. Karan Sachdev and Mr. Agrim Arora, Advocates.

 versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSC with Mr. Abhishek Khanna, GP.
                                                               Mr. Amit Bansal, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms. Vipasha Mishra, Advocate for R-2 to 4.

W.P.(C) 1383/2021

MAKEMYTRIP (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. B L Narasimhan, Mr. Karan Sachdev and Mr. Agrim Arora, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Mr. Raghav Nagar, Advocate. Mr, Amit Gupta, GP.
                         Mr. Amit Bansal, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms. Vipasha Mishra, Advocate for R-2 to 4.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R
16.02.2021

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

CM APPL. 3800/2021 in W.P. (C) 1354/2021 (for exemption)
CM APPL. 3902/2021 in W.P. (C) 1383/2021 (for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The applications stand disposed of.

W.P. (C) 1354/2021 & W.P. (C) 1383/2021

3. The grievance of the Petitioners is that there are errors in the common portal of the GSTN which is preventing them to file the statement in compliance of Section 52 (3) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 [hereinafter referred to as ‘CGST Act’] read with Rule 67 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 [hereinafter referred to as ‘CGST Rules’]. Mr. Amit Bansal, Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondent states that, the grievance urged in the present petitions stands resolved, and now, if the Petitioners were to make an attempt to file the statement on the common portal, they would be able to successfully upload the same. Mr. Narsimhan, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that, he has to take instructions and is unable to confirm or deny if indeed the problems stand rectified.

4. Be that as it may, we take the statement of Mr. Amit Bansal on record and further direct the Petitioner to approach Ms. Shrishty Saxena, the concerned Officer, with GSTN on 17th February, 2021 at 11:00 AM for the purpose of filing and uploading the statement in compliance of Section 52 (3) of the CGST Act. Ms. Shrishty Saxena will assist the Petitioner in filing and uploading the statement on the online portal. In the event, for any technical reason, the statement is not uploaded on the portal, she would accept the statement manually and forward it to the concerned Commissionerate for processing the same. Mr. Narsimhan has also pointed out that, on account of the error on the portal and delay/ non-filing of the statements within the period stipulated, there is a possibility that the Petitioners are burdened with levy of penalty and interest under the provisions of the CGST Act.

5. On this aspect, we can only observe that, if and when the penalty or interest are levied on account of delay in filing the statement, that is eventually filed electronically or manually on 17th February, 2021, as the case may be, the Petitioner would be at liberty to approach the concerned Commissionerate with a representation explaining the reasons for the delay that prevented them to file the statement within the statutory timelines. The representations as and when filed, shall be considered, and disposed of in accordance with law, having regard to the circumstances noted in this order. In case the decision on such a representation is against the Petitioners, they shall be at liberty to their remedies in accordance with law. With the aforesaid directions, no further orders are required to be passed in the present petitions and accordingly, the same stand disposed of.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

SANJEEV NARULA, J

FEBRUARY 16, 2021

Equivalent .