M/S Barnwal Traders vs. Commissioner Of State Tax And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Barnwal Traders, filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court challenging an order dated 07.08.2024 passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the tax period 2019-20. The petitioner contended that provisions of Section 16(5) and (6) of the Act were implemented by a notification dated 08.08.2024, followed by a circular dated 15.10.2024. Based on these, the petitioner had filed an application seeking rectification of the impugned order, which was pending with the respondents. The petitioner prayed for a direction to decide this rectification application expeditiously after providing a hearing.

Held

The Court decided not to delve into the merits of the submissions made in the rectification application. Instead, it disposed of the writ petition by directing respondent no. 2 to decide the pending rectification application of the petitioner with expedition. The authority was specifically instructed to provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner before passing the final order. The decision was based on the respondent's lack of objection to the petitioner's prayer for expeditious disposal. The Court's ratio is that when a rectification application is pending and the revenue has no objection to its expeditious disposal with a hearing, the High Court can direct the authority to proceed accordingly without examining the merits of the application itself. The operative direction is for the authority to decide the rectification application within four weeks of receiving a copy of the order, after providing a personal hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authority should be directed to decide the pending rectification application filed by the petitioner expeditiously, providing an opportunity of hearing? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning the procedural fairness and timely disposal of applications under the GST Act). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that a notification dated 08.08.2024 and a subsequent circular dated 15.10.2024, implementing provisions of Section 16(5) and (6) of the Act, formed the basis for their rectification application. They contended that this application remained pending and sought a direction for its speedy disposal with a personal hearing. Respondent's Contention: The counsel for the respondents stated they had no objection to the prayer made by the petitioner.