Point of Law: Clarifications/circulars issued by the Central Government and of the State Government are concerned they represent merely their understanding of the statutory provisions. They are not binding upon the court. It is for the court to declare what the particular provision of statute says and it is not for the executive. Looked at from another angle, a circular which is contrary to the statutory provisions has really no existence in law.

ORDER :

J.B.PARDIWALA, J.

1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs;

“(A) To admit and allow this petition;

(B) To issue any appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents permitting the petitioner to edit and upload actual entries in GSTR-3b for the Month of May- 2019 which is at the submission stage;

(C) To issue any appropriate writ, order, or direction to the respondents to modify the conditions and rules mentioned in the Annexure-A by which a registered person can edit any error if occurred during submitting/offsetting the ITC and before filing of the GSTR-3b return;

(D) Pending hearing, admission, and/or final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the late fees of Rs.50/- daily being charged on the petitioner for non-filing of the said return for the said month i.e, May-2019 and also may be pleased to stay the late fees of Rs.50/- daily being charged for the subsequent due returns;

(E) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to wave the late fee charged for non-submission of the return for the month of May-2019 and further be pleased to wave the late fee being charged daily for the non-submission of returns due for the subsequent months by considering facts, circumstances and genuineness of the case;

(F) To pass any such other and further orders as Your Lordships may deem just, fit in the interest of justice.”

2. The facts, giving rise to this litigation, may be summarized as under;

2.1 The writ applicant is a proprietary concern and is engaged in the business of printing of dress materials etc. It is not in dispute that the proprietary concern is registered under the CGST/GGST Act, 2017. It appears that the writ applicant had submitted the return of his business in the month of May, 2019 through the Online process, i.e, the GST Online Portal. The writ applicant, inadvertently, in the course of making entries in the GSTR-3B for the month of May, 2019, wrongly uploaded the entries of M/s. Deepak Process instead of M/s. Deepak Print.

2.2 In such circumstances, referred to above, the writ applicant preferred a representation in writing addressed to the Nodal Officer, SGST Office, Rajkot dated 25th June, 2019, which reads as under;

“To,

Nodal Officer,

SGST Office,

Rajkot.

Sir, Sub:- Request to Undo Offset of May 2019 GSTR3B GSTNo 24ABYPB5420A124.

By mistake, we have uploaded GSTR3B wrong data in May 2019 month return. We have not filed return yet. We have just submitted and realize our mistake. Now we want to edit our figures. Data submitted is of another party with similar kind of name. Wrong Turnover & wrong ITC which is submitted is too much high and we cannot adjust same as per circular 26/2017 dated 29.12.17. Turnover Rs.53713454/- & Total Rs.2685672/- output wrongly shown and ITC Rs.2273945/- lakh wrongly claimed. Actual Turnover is Rs.498407/- & output Rs.24920/- and ITC Rs.21100/-. We have no option except to raise issue with you people.

Please undo offset figures and re-enable submit button or Provide us fresh blank may month. Remove submitted lock. We have attached right and wrong party data. Deepak Print data is right while Deepak Process data is wrong one. By mistake, Deepak Process data uploaded in Deepak Print.

We request to undo Offset of May 2019 GSTR3B.

M/s. Deepak Print Proprietor.”

2.3 It appears that the Nodal Officer at Rajkot did not even bother to give a formal reply or respond to the representation preferred by the writ applicant, referred to above. The writ applicant did try his best to take up the matter with the concerned authority, but ultimately had to come before this Court with the present writ application.

2.4 We take notice of the fact that in last two years, the respondents have not even thought fit to file a formal reply opposing the writ application. Even, as on date, time was prayed for, which this Court declined having regard to the facts of the present case.

2.5 We have heard Mr. Raj Tanna,