Super Crop Safe LTD. vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court noted that both parties were in agreement regarding the calculation of taxes. The primary issue revolved around the rectification of the order and the mode of payment. The respondent's inability to upload the rectification order online was acknowledged. The Court directed that the manual rectification order be made available through e-mode within two weeks, and the payment of Rs. 6,12,956/- for A.Y. 2017-18, which was permitted to be paid manually, should follow within a week thereafter. The Court effectively resolved the dispute by facilitating the rectification and payment process, implicitly addressing the petitioner's concerns about the calculation error and the procedural aspect by allowing for a corrected order and payment.

Facts

The petitioner, Super Crop Safe Ltd., challenged an order dated 04.03.2022 passed under Section 73 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without affording an opportunity of being heard, violating Section 75(4) of the GST Act. Furthermore, the petitioner had filed an application on 20.04.2022 pointing out a calculation error in the tax assessment, which they argued went to the root of the impugned order. The High Court, on 30.06.2022, issued notice and permitted the authority to decide on the calculation error in the interim. Upon final hearing, both parties agreed on the tax calculation, but the respondent could not upload the rectification order online. The outstanding amount for the period A.Y. 2017-18 was Rs. 6,12,956/-.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 04.03.2022 passed under Section 73 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is liable to be set aside for being passed without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, as mandated by Section 75(4) of the GST Act? 2. Whether the calculation error pointed out by the petitioner in their application dated 20.04.2022 vitiates the impugned order? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the order was passed in violation of Section 75(4) of the GST Act, which mandates an opportunity of being heard before passing an adverse order. They also contended that a significant calculation error, highlighted in their subsequent application, affected the merit of the impugned order. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment records that both sides were heard and were ad-idem on the calculation of taxes. No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue regarding the procedural violation or the calculation error, other than their inability to upload the rectification order online.