Ms S S Gariya And Sons Construction vs. The Assistant Commissioner

Held

The Court noted the consensus between the parties that the issues involved in this writ petition were identical to those decided in Writ Petition No. 120 of 2025 (MB). Consequently, the Court decided the present writ petition in terms of the judgment rendered in WPMB No. 120 of 2025 on 06.06.2025. While the specific findings of the earlier judgment are not detailed in this order, the decision to follow it implies that the relief granted in the earlier case was extended to the petitioner. The operative direction was to decide the present petition in terms of the prior judgment, suggesting that the outcome would mirror that decision, likely involving a remand or reconsideration of the petitioner's case on merits, given the nature of the reliefs sought.

Facts

The petitioner, a taxable person registered with Uttarakhand GST, filed a writ petition challenging a demand order (DRC-07) dated 03.12.2022, issued under Section 73 of the GST Act, demanding Rs. 490,574.04 for the tax period April-2022 to June-2022. The petitioner also challenged the related Show Cause Notice dated 24.09.2022. Furthermore, the petitioner sought to quash an order dated 24.02.2025 (FORM GST APL-02) passed by Respondent No. 2, which rejected their appeal on grounds of delay in submission, without considering the merits. The petitioner requested rectification of the demand order and a rehearing under Section 75(4) of the Act. The petitioner's counsel stated that an identical issue was decided by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 120 of 2025 (MB), J.V.M. Industries Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, and prayed for a similar decision.

Key Issues

1. Whether the demand order passed under Section 73, the preceding Show Cause Notice, and the appellate rejection order are erroneous and liable to be quashed? The petitioner argued that the demand order and show cause notice were erroneous. They further contended that the appellate order rejecting their appeal on grounds of delay, without considering the merits, was also erroneous and sought rectification of the demand order and a rehearing. The State conceded that the issue was identical to a previously decided case. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to rectification of the demand order and a rehearing under Sections 161 and 75(4) of the GST Act? The petitioner sought these directions to redetermine the demand amount after due verification of records, based on their GSTR-3B for January-March 2023.