M/S Renu Construction Company vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Renu Construction Company, filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in deciding their rectification application dated 21.10.2024. This application sought to rectify an order dated 29.04.2024. The petitioner had initially responded to a notice under Section 61 of the GST Act, indicating no discrepancy. Subsequently, a notice under Section 73 of the Act was issued, to which the petitioner also responded. However, the order dated 29.04.2024 was passed based on the petitioner's alleged failure to substantiate a plea regarding a discrepancy pertaining to the VAT regime in 2017-18. The petitioner claims that the relevant assessment order for that period was passed on 15.10.2024, and the rectification application was filed on 21.10.2024, along with this order, but it remained undecided. The petitioner also contended that they had provided material indicating VAT deduction by the Uttar Pradesh Public Works Department, which was not considered.
Held
The Court held that in the peculiar circumstances of the case, where the authority's reasoning for passing the order under Section 73 of the GST Act was based on the non-production of the assessment order for the year 2017-18 (VAT regime), and this assessment order was subsequently passed on 15.10.2024 and submitted with the rectification application on 21.10.2024, the rectification application ought to be decided on merits. The Court acknowledged that the application remained pending. The respondents' contention regarding limitation was noted, but the primary focus of the Court's direction was to ensure the pending application was adjudicated. The Court did not delve into the merits of the rectification application itself but directed the concerned authority to do so. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the substantive decision on the rectification application was deferred to the authority.
Key Issues
1. Whether the rectification application filed by the petitioner is maintainable, considering the respondents' contention regarding limitation under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the subsequent events. 2. Whether the authority erred in passing the order dated 29.04.2024 without considering the material produced by the petitioner, including the assessment order for the VAT regime period of 2017-18, which was subsequently obtained and submitted with the rectification application. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that their rectification application, filed on 21.10.2024, along with the assessment order for the 2017-18 VAT period (passed on 15.10.2024), should be decided on merits. They contended that the order under Section 73 was passed without considering crucial evidence, such as the deduction of VAT by the Uttar Pradesh Public Works Department, and that the subsequent assessment order supported their plea. The petitioner highlighted that their application remained pending despite the submission of relevant documents. Respondent's Arguments: The respondents contended that the rectification application was time-barred, citing a three-month limitation period. However, they did not deny that the application remained undecided.
Sections Cited
Section 61, Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:88057-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 2505 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/s Renu Construction Company Respondent :- State of U.P. and 2 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anuj Datta, Sitaram Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Ankur Agarwal (S.C.) Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the inaction of the respondents in deciding the application dated 21.10.2024 (Annexure-11) filed by the petitioner, seeking rectification of the order dated 29.04.2024. 2. Submissions have been made that on a notice issued under Section 61 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ('the Act'), the petitioner filed details indicating that there was apparently no discrepancy. Whereafter a notice under Section 73 of the Act was issued, again petitioner filed a detailed response, however, the order dated 29.04.2024 was passed based on the fact that the plea raised by the petitioner regarding the alleged discrepancy pertaining to the year 2017-18, i.e. during the VAT regime, was not substantiated from the assessment order of the said period.
It is indicated that the assessment order of the said period was passed by the authority on 15.10.2024 based on which the petitioner filed a rectification application on 21.10.2024 along with the assessment order, however, the application remains pending.
Irrespective of the said assessment order, submissions have been made that the petitioner had produced material to indicate the deduction made by the Uttar Pradesh Public Works Department of the amount of VAT, however, the said aspect was not taken into consideration and even the said documents were sufficient to seek rectification.
Counsel for the respondents made submissions that the application seeking rectification was apparently time barred as the limitation is three months and the order is required to be passed within six months thereafter, however, it is not denied that the application remains pending and has not been decided so far.
In the peculiar circumstances of the case, wherein the reason inter alia indicated by the authority while passing the order under Section 73 of the Act pertains to non-production of the assessment order of the year 2017-18 by the VAT authorities and the assessment order has been passed on 15.10.2024, as claimed by the petitioner, we direct respondent no.2/Deputy Commissioner (GST), Kanpur to decide the rectification application filed by the petitioner on merits.
Needful may be done within a period of two months from the date a copy of this order is placed by the petitioner with the said authority.
With the above direction, the petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 23.5.2025 AHA/Sazia (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) AFZAL HUSAIN ABBASI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.