2025 (7) TMI 266 - HC - GST

Rejection of application for rectification - thogh the petitioner replied to SCN the impugned order states that the petitioner has not replied to the same - HELD THAT - The petitioner has made out a case for interfering with the impugned order as the impugned order clearly records that the petitioner has not replied even though the petitioner has indeed replied on 22.01.2025 which has been duly acknowledged in Form GST DRC 06. The impugned order is quashed and the case is remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to state before passing final orders the reply of the petitioner shall be considered and the petitioner shall also be heard. Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

The Madras High Court, through Justice C. Saravanan, allowed the writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 18.02.2025 for the assessment year 2020-21. The petitioner contended that the order was passed prematurely, before issuance of the show cause notice (DRC 01 dated 29.11.2024) and despite having replied on 22.01.2025, acknowledged via Form GST DRC 06. The petitioner's rectification application dated 08.05.2025 was rejected by the respondent on 10.06.2025 citing a Board circular. The Court held that the impugned order erroneously recorded non-receipt of the petitioner's reply and thus "made out a case for interfering with the impugned order." The order was quashed and the matter remitted for a fresh decision on merits "in accordance with law," directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's reply and hear the petitioner before passing final orders, preferably within three months. The writ petition was allowed with no costs.