1. The grievance raised by the petitioners – company in the present case is that certain practical and technical difficulties had arisen to the petitionerassessee and others when the change of Tax Regime from VAT/Service Tax Regime to GST Regime took place in India w.e.f. 01.07.2017.  

2. The online uploading of the Forms and Declaration like TRANS-1 etc., became difficult due to technical glitches according to the petitioners and therefore, the due credit of the Input Tax Credit (ITC) which was lying in the credit of the petitioners-company under the earlier tax regime was not reflected in the Data Base of the Respondent -Government. The assessment orders passed by the 7th Respondent – Asst. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore, has also been challenged in the present writ petitions.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners – company Mr. Monish Panda has urged that despite the representations filed to the Respondent- Commissioner, GST, Bengaluru – the Jurisdictional Officer, he has not been decided such representation after giving a proper and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-assessee.  

4. The learned counsel for the Respondent- Commercial Tax Department Mr. Vikram Huilgol however submits that a separate Nodal Officers at the level of Commissioner have been appointed by the Central Government in all the States and they can definitely look into the grievances of the petitioners regarding technical and administrative difficulties faced by the assessee and can pass appropriate orders in the matter. However, the assessee should comply with the condition of filing the requisite returns and declarations in this regard.

5. In view of the aforesaid submissions made at the bar, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petitions on the merits of the issues raised in the writ petitions as the same can be addressed by the Authorities under the GST Act and the appellate authorities. The petitioner-company is therefore relegated before the concerned Nodal Officer (Commissioner) at Bengaluru, before whom the representations already filed by the petitioners-company or which may be now filed afresh with the relevant evidence will be decided by the said Nodal Officer and all the issues relating to administration and technical difficulties faced by the petitioner as raised in the writ petitions will be decided on merits with due and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and petitioners complying with the directions of said authority and filing requisite returns and declarations as per the relevant applicable Rules, Circulars and Notifications etc.

6. The petitioners-company should appear before the concerned authority in the first instance on 05.11.2018 at 11 AM and a period of two months is allowed to the said Nodal Authority to pass appropriate orders. Against the impugned assessment orders, the assessee should avail the regular remedy by way of appeal u/S.107 of the KGST Act. The said appeal if so filed within a period of four weeks from today, it will be entertained without raising the objection of limitation.

7. It is made clear that if any prejudicial order is passed against the petitioners-company by the said Nodal Officer being not in consonance with the provisions of the Act or the relevant and extant Circulars and Notifications issued by the Respondents – State and Central Government from time to time, the petitioners will have liberty to avail the appropriate legal remedy including the invoking of writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against such speaking and reasoned order to be passed by the Nodal Officer.

8. With these observations, the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.  

In view of the disposal of the main writ petition itself, the I.A.2/18 and I.A.3/18 do not survive for consideration and the same also stand dismissed.