Parties through their counsel.

The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to make an amendment in respect of the registration application keeping in view the GST Rules, 2017.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that a Nodal Officer has been appointed in the matter by the Union of India and all the grievances now be looked into by the Nodal Officer. He has also stated that the Karnataka High Court has disposed of identical writ petitions directing the Nodal Officer, appointed under the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, to consider the complaint of the petitioner therein and to take a decision in the matter.

The order passed by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Pragati Automotion (P) Ltd. v/s Union of India reported in (2019) 102 Taxmann.com 468 (Karnataka) reads as under:-

1. Learned counsel Smt. M. R. Vanaja accepts notice for respondent No.1.

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent Nos. 4 and 7. Learned counsel Sri. K. M. Shivayogiswami accepts notice for respondent Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6.

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioners to correct the bonafide error which has crept in while filing the GST Tran-1 form because of which the petitioner is deprived of the transitional credit of an amount of ₹ 9,74,57,802/- in their electronic credit ledger.

2. It is the contention of the petitioner that after the GST regime has been implemented in India, the petitioner filed GST TRAN-I claiming credit of ₹ 9,74,57,802/- in Column – 5 of Table 5(a) of Form GST TRAN-1 well within the time prescribed by the statute. Revised Form GST TRAN-1 was filed by the petitioner on 27/12/2017 after including the details of goods sent to job worker and held in his stock on behalf of the principal manufacturer in terms of Section 141 of CGST Act credit pertaining to job work. However, credit claim was indicated only in Column 5 of Table 5(a) but not in Column – 6. The electronic credit ledger reflected credit of ₹ 5,89,346/-. The petitioner made several complaints before the Nodal Officer, but the same has not been considered so far.

3. It is hardly required to be stated that the Nodal Officer appointed under the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) and State Goods & Services Tax (SGST) Acts is obligated to consider the complaint of the petitioner and take a decision in the matter. However, the same has not been done, it is imperative for this Court to direct respondent No.7 – Nodal Officer to consider the complaint / representation made by the petitioner at Annexures-H and K to the Writ Petition and take a decision in accordance with law in an expedite manner and is ordered accordingly.

Writ Petition stands disposed of in terms of the above.

In the light of the aforesaid, the present Writ Petition also stands disposed of. The Nodal Officer is directed to consider the complaint / representation made by the petitioner and to take a decision in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner is at liberty to approach this Court again in case he is still aggrieved in the matter.

Certified copy as per rules.