9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 173 - HC - GSTSeeking rectification in summary order - errors apparent on the face of record or not - seeking remand of case so as to avail the petitioner an opportunity of being heard - HELD THAT - It appears that the petitioner has filed rectification application immediately after the said order on 20.8.2019 invoking the provisions of Section 161 of Goods and Services Tax Act. The said provision permits rectification of errors apparent on the face of the record according to the petitioner the discrepancy is only an error apparent which does not amount to illegality. Be as it may. Having considered the totality of facts and upon hearing learned advocates for both the sides the court finds that the interest of justice would be sub-served if the application for rectification application filed by the petitioner on 20.8.2019 is directed to be decided by the competent authority within a time frame - The competent authority of the respondent is directed to decide the rectification application after opportunity to be given to both the sides within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Until the rectification application is decided the impugned order dated 14.8.2019 shall not be enforced subject to outcome of the decision of the rectification application. Petition disposed off.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are rectification of a summary order dated 14.8.2019 under the Goods and Services Tax Act, discrepancy in details of forms submitted, issuance of a show cause notice under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, filing of a rectification application under Section 161 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, and the demand raised by the authority in the show cause notice. Rectification of Summary Order: The petitioner sought direction to rectify the summary order dated 14.8.2019 and set it aside, requesting a remand of the case to provide an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard. The court, after considering the facts and hearing both sides, directed the competent authority of the respondent to decide the rectification application within eight weeks from the date of the order. The enforcement of the impugned order dated 14.8.2019 was stayed pending the decision on the rectification application. Discrepancy in Forms Submitted: The petitioner, engaged in selling milk and milk products, received a Notice dated 26.5.2019 under the Goods and Services Tax Act regarding a discrepancy in details of forms submitted for the month of October 2018. Despite explanations provided by the petitioner to the authority, a show cause notice was issued under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act. The petitioner uploaded a reply to the show cause notice, explaining the differences between the forms submitted. The discrepancy arose from mentioning sale transaction details of the previous month in the first form, which was not accepted by the respondents leading to the issuance of the impugned order dated 14.8.2019 confirming the demand raised by the authority. Rectification Application under Section 161: Following the impugned order, the petitioner filed a rectification application on 20.8.2019 under Section 161 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, seeking rectification of errors apparent on the face of the record. The petitioner argued that the discrepancy was an error apparent and did not amount to illegality. The court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directed the competent authority to decide the rectification application after providing an opportunity to both sides within a specified time frame. Conclusion: The court disposed of the petition by permitting direct service and directing the competent authority to decide the rectification application within eight weeks. The enforcement of the impugned order dated 14.8.2019 was stayed pending the decision on the rectification application, emphasizing the importance of ensuring justice in the matter.
|
