M/S Sky Constructions Company vs. State Of Haryana And Ors

Held

The Court noted the petitioner's primary grievance that a system glitch prevented the deposit of 10% of the disputed tax amount (Rs. 1,54,733.40), as the auto-generated Form GST APL-01 indicated zero percent. The Court also observed that the petitioner had filed a rectification application, which was pending, and that the petitioner had attempted to withdraw this application. Crucially, both parties agreed that the controversy could be effectively considered and adjudicated through the rectification application. The petitioner agreed to withdraw their email seeking withdrawal of the rectification application. The respondents, on instructions, assured that the rectification application would be decided expeditiously, within six weeks, after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of based on this consensus.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sky Construction Company, filed a writ petition before the Punjab & Haryana High Court challenging the non-deposit of Rs. 1,54,733.40, which was 10% of the disputed tax amount. The petitioner contended that this deposit could not be made due to a system glitch on the department's part, which erroneously showed the required deposit as zero percent in the auto-generated Form GST APL-01. The State initially pointed out that the petitioner's rectification application was pending. The petitioner then sought to withdraw this application via email, but it had not yet been accepted. Both parties agreed that the grievance could be adjudicated through the rectification application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's inability to deposit 10% of the disputed tax amount (Rs. 1,54,733.40) was attributable to a system glitch on the department's part, as claimed by the petitioner? 2. Whether the rectification application filed by the petitioner is the appropriate forum for adjudicating the grievance regarding the disputed tax deposit? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the non-deposit was due to a system error where the auto-generated Form GST APL-01 showed zero percent as the deposit amount. They also stated their intention to withdraw the rectification application via email. Revenue's contentions: The State submitted that the petitioner's rectification application was still pending. Upon instructions, they agreed that the rectification application would be decided expeditiously and in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.