M/S Ravinder Singh Gariya vs. The Assistant Commissioner SGST
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition by permitting the petitioner firm to apply for rectification. It directed the concerned respondent to pass appropriate orders on any such application filed by the petitioner. Furthermore, the Court stipulated that upon completion of the rectification process, the petitioner's request for revocation of the order of cancellation of GST registration would be considered and decided in accordance with the law. The Court's decision was based on the stand taken by the Revenue acknowledging the petitioner's deposit of tax and the pendency of rectification processes. The Court did not delve into the merits of the original demands but facilitated a procedural resolution.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Ravinder Singh Gariya, challenged an order in original dated 16.04.2025 passed under Section 73 of the Uttarakhand State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and prior orders dated 30.11.2022 and 15.04.2023 passed under Section 62 of the Act. The petitioner also sought a direction for rectification of demand under Section 161 read with Rule 142(7). The petitioner claimed to have deposited the demanded tax amount on 24.02.2025. The respondents, in their counter-affidavit, stated that a show cause notice under Section 73 was issued on 03.02.2025, but the petitioner did not appear for a personal hearing on 27.02.2025. Demands under Section 62 were created for various periods due to non-filing of returns. The petitioner filed returns and deposited tax for specific periods on 24.02.2025. Rectification applications were filed and some were rectified.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for rectification of the demand in light of the tax deposit and subsequent rectification of some demands under Section 161 of the Act? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they had already deposited the tax amount on 24.02.2025, prior to the impugned order. They also sought rectification of the demand under Section 161 read with Rule 142(7) due to alleged double taxation and the subsequent rectification of some demands by the respondents. Respondents' contention: The respondents stated that the petitioner failed to appear for the personal hearing for the Section 73 notice and that demands were raised under Section 62 due to non-filing of returns. They acknowledged that the petitioner filed returns and deposited tax for specific periods on 24.02.2025 and that some rectification applications were filed and processed.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 62, Section 161, Rule 142(7)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT :(per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner firm has assailed the order in original dated 16.04.2025, passed under Section 73 of the Uttarakhand State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and the orders dated 30.11.2022 and 15.04.2023, passed under Section 62 of the Act. The petitioner firm has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to rectify the demand in exercise of powers under Section 161 read with Rule 142 (7) of the Act.
The case of the petitioner firm is that it had deposited the tax amount being demanded by the impugned orders, on 24.02.2025 itself. 1
2026
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Uttarakhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.