Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shankar Lal Agarwal, Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C to leaned Advocate General for the State of Jharkhand and Mr. Bharat Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no. 3- Bharti Airtel Limited through Video Conferencing.

Petitioner approached this Court on issuance of notice bearing Reference No. 2469, dated 4.5.2018 (Annexure-8) by the Deputy Commissioner of Estate Tax under GST Act, Jamshedpur Circle, Jamshedpur intimating discrepancy in the return submitted by him which showed that an amount of ₹ 20,31,000/- was not reflected in the return filed by respondent no. 3. He also sought a direction upon the respondent no. 2 to decide upon the issue based upon the reply to show cause filed by the petitioner dated 12th May, 2018, whereunder he had informed respondent no. 2 that though Central GST and State GST has already been collected from the petitioner through its Tax Invoice, but it is not being reflected in the return of the respondent no. 3 due to his mistake. He also requested for convening a meeting with the respondent no. 3.

State has filed a counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the State submits that the writ petition is premature as the adjudication on the impugned notice is yet to be made. Petitioner was asked to explain the discrepancies found in the return. But instead of appearing before the authority, he has approached this Court. Learned counsel for the State submits that the matter would be adjudicated upon by the competent authority/Deputy Commissioner, Jamshedpur and petitioner and respondent no. 3 both are required to subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the respondent no. 2 with all relevant documents.

Respondent no. 3 has filed a counter affidavit, in which it has taken a plea that the petitioner is a distributor/dealer of the respondent no. 3 and the answering respondent supplies sim, recharges, etc. to him. The Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 became effective from 1st July, 2017. Respondent no. 3 provided recharge against 48 invoices valued at ₹ 1,38,47,088, taxable value ₹ 17,34,822, out of which, CGST amount was ₹ 10,56,133 and SGST amount was ₹ 10,56,133. Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 further submits that since the new GST registration number of the petitioner was not provided with the answering respondent in the month of July, 2017, the returns under Section 39 of GST Act were deposited in the Console B2C Project. They were uploaded in September, 2018, but with a prefix due to the issue of duplicity of invoices as per provisions of Section 39 of the GST Act. This issue has arisen only because of the fact that GST registration number of the petitioner was not provided in the month of July, 2017. Learned counsel Mr. Bharat Kumar submits that respondent no. 3 is ready and bound to participate in the inquiry conducted by the respondent no. 2, Deputy Commissioner of Estate Tax GST Act, Jamshedpur Circle. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a timeline may be fixed for conclusion of the inquiry.

Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties in the narrow compass of facts noticed hereinabove, it appears that the issue at hand is required to be addressed at the level of the respondent no. 2 in the first place. The impugned notice dated 4th May, 2018 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Estate Tax GST Act, Jamshedpur Circle reflects some discrepancies in the return filed by the petitioner. Petitioner and respondent no. 3 both are ready and bound to cooperate in the inquiry. Respondent no. 2 shall endeavour to conclude the inquiry within a reasonable time preferably 16 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petitioner and respondent no. 3 both should cooperate in the matter.

Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of.