Seema Devi Jain vs. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii / Avato
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Seema Devi Jain, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 30.12.2023, a demand notice in Form GST DRC-07, and a show cause notice dated 30.09.2023 issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act, along with a summary of the show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01. The impugned order resulted in a demand of Rs. 11,24,959/-. During the proceedings, it was submitted that a payment of INR 9,93,715/- was made by the petitioner. The petitioner contended that this payment was for liabilities accrued for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018, but due to inadvertence, the tax period was incorrectly mentioned as April 2021 to March 2022 in the challan (Form GST DRC-03).
Held
The Court found that the narrow question of whether the deposited amount of INR 9,93,715/- pertained to the tax period July 2017 to March 2018 or April 2021 to March 2022, as contended by the petitioner due to an alleged inadvertent error in the challan, did not warrant the continued retention of the writ petition. The Court directed the petitioner to file a representation with all relevant details of the payments made to the competent authority of the respondents. Upon receiving such an application, the competent authority is mandated to examine the correct tax period for which the liability of INR 9,93,715/- pertains. After considering any deposits made by the petitioner, the authority shall pass a final order computing any amounts found to be due and payable. The writ petition was disposed of on these terms, with all rights and contentions of the respective parties on merits kept open. No specific issue was left undecided, but the final determination of the tax period and consequent demand was delegated to the respondent authority.
Key Issues
1. Whether the amount of INR 9,93,715/- deposited by the writ petitioner constituted a liability for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018 or April 2021 to March 2022, as contended by the petitioner due to an inadvertent error in the challan? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the payment of INR 9,93,715/- was intended for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018. However, due to an inadvertent mistake while filling out the challan in Form GST DRC-03, the tax period was incorrectly stated as April 2021 to March 2022. The petitioner sought to rectify this discrepancy. Respondent's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent (Sales Tax Officer Class II / AVATO).
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2025
The writ petition, as originally preferred, had sought the following reliefs: “The petitioner therefore, most humbly prays that this Hon’ ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India,
To set aside the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 resulted into demand of Rs.11,24,959/-, the impugned notice of demand issued as per Form GST DRC-07 dated 30.12.2023 and the impugned show cause notice dated 30.09.2023 issued u/s 73 of the CGST Act along with summary of show cause notice dated 30.09.2023 as per form GST DRC-01. 2. Pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
However, in the course of its consideration, we had taken note of the submission that the payment of INR 9,93,715/- was in respect of liabilities which had accrued for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018. It is, however, the case of the writ petitioner that due to inadvertence while effecting payment and filling out the relevant challan in Form GST DRC-03, the tax period came to be mentioned as This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 20:57:02
April 2021 to March 2022. 3. The solitary question which thus merits examination is whether the amount of INR 9,93,715/-, as was deposited by the writ petitioner, constituted a liability for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018 or April 2021 to March 2022. 4. In our considered opinion, the narrow question which thus remains and stands crystallized above, would not merit the retention of this writ petition on our board and it would thus be appropriate to require the writ petitioner to file a representation along with all details pertaining to the payments made for the consideration of the competent authority of the respondents.
Once such an application is made, the competent authority shall examine the tax period for which the liability of INR 9,93,715/- pertains and after taking into account any deposits that were made by the writ petitioner, pass a final order of computation of any amounts found to be due and payable thereafter.
The writ petition shall stand disposed of on the aforesaid terms.
All rights and contentions of respective parties on merits are kept open.
YASHWANT VARMA, J
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J FEBRUARY 28, 2025/kk This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 20:57:02
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.