Vinayak Metal Industries vs. The Deputy Commissioner

Held

The Court, without delving into the validity of the order under Section 73, disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner-firm to apply for rectification. The Court directed that if a rectification application is filed, accompanied by evidence demonstrating the deposit of the demanded tax in the subsequent financial year, the concerned respondent shall decide the application on its merits expeditiously. The Court did not decide on the validity of the original order or the appealability thereof, focusing solely on facilitating the rectification process. The ratio decidendi is that where a petitioner claims to have rectified a tax demand by subsequent payment and seeks to approach the authority for rectification, the High Court may grant liberty to do so, directing expeditious disposal on merits, without prejudice to the statutory remedies.

Facts

The petitioner, Vinayak Metal Industries, challenged an order in original dated 15.02.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, SGST, Uttarakhand, under Section 73 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017. This order was based on a show cause notice dated 29.11.2024. The petitioner also sought to restrain coercive measures. The petitioner stated that the entire amount of tax demanded in the impugned order was deposited in the subsequent financial year. The respondent revenue pointed out that the order under Section 73 is appealable, a remedy not yet pursued by the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to liberty to apply for rectification of the order passed under Section 73 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017, given that the tax demanded was allegedly deposited in a subsequent financial year? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that since the entire tax amount was deposited in the subsequent financial year, they should be granted liberty to apply for rectification, and the Department should be directed to consider such an application in accordance with law. Respondent's contention: The revenue contended that the order passed under Section 73 of the Act is appealable, and the petitioner had not availed this statutory remedy.