M/S Ravinder Singh Gariya vs. The Assistant Commissioner SGST

Original PDF →

WPMB/1126/2025HC UttarakhandGSTCNR UKHC01020910202516 June 2026Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY2 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Ravinder Singh Gariya, filed a writ petition challenging an order in original dated 16.04.2025, passed by the Assistant Commissioner SGST. The petitioner sought a direction for rectification of this order. The petitioner's grievance was that a tax deposit made through DRC-03 on 27.12.2022 was not considered when the impugned order was passed. The revenue, in its counter-affidavit, admitted the deposit of the amount on 27.12.2022 but stated that it was not reflected due to a technical error on the portal. The revenue also indicated that the demand could be rectified under Section 161 of the Uttarakhand State Goods and Services Tax Act.

Held

The Court held that in view of the stand taken by the Revenue, which admitted the deposit of the tax amount by the petitioner on 27.12.2022 and acknowledged a technical error in its reflection on the portal, the petitioner should be permitted to make an application for rectification. The Court directed the respondent (Assistant Commissioner SGST) to carry out the rectification of the impugned order, keeping in mind that the petitioner had already deposited the amount towards the tax demanded by the impugned order on 27.12.2022. The Court did not explicitly decide on the validity of the original order itself but focused on the rectifiable nature of the error. The operative direction was to allow the petitioner to apply for rectification and for the respondent to act upon it.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 16.04.2025, passed by the Assistant Commissioner SGST, is liable to be rectified to include the tax deposit made by the petitioner on 27.12.2022, considering the admission of a technical error by the revenue. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the tax due was deposited on 27.12.2022 through DRC-03, and this deposit was not taken into account while passing the impugned order. The petitioner sought a direction for rectification of the order. Revenue's contention: The revenue admitted that the amount was deposited by the petitioner on 27.12.2022. However, it was stated that due to a technical error in the portal, the deposit was not reflected. The revenue acknowledged that the demand could be rectified under Section 161 of the Uttarakhand State Goods and Services Tax Act.

Sections Cited

Section 161

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

2026:UHC:4881-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 1126 OF 2025 16TH JUNE, 2026 M/s Ravinder Singh Gariya …… Petitioner Versus Asstt. Commissioner SGST & another …… Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Dr. Govind Singh Latwal, learned counsel Counsel for the respondents : Ms. Puja Banga, learned Standing Counsel for the State / revenue The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:

The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order in original dated 16.04.2025, passed by respondent No. 1, and for a direction to the said respondent to allow the request of the petitioner for rectification of the said order. The case of the petitioner is that he had deposited the tax due through DRC-03 on 27.12.2022, but the same has not been taken into consideration, while passing the impugned order. 2) The Revenue has filed counter-affidavit and, in paragraph 7 of thereof it is admitted that the amount in question was deposited by the petitioner on 27.12.2022, but it 1

2026:UHC:4881-DB is stated that due to technical error in the portal it was not being reflected. It is stated that the demand can be rectified under Section 161 of the Uttarakhand State Goods and Services Tax Act. 3)

In view of the stand taken by the Revenue, we permit the petitioner to make application for rectification along with true attested copy of the instant order and, in the event any such application is filed, the respondent is directed to carry out rectification keeping in mind the fact that the petitioner had already deposited the amount towards tax demanded by the impugned order on 27.12.2022. 4)

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

______________________

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.

_________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.

Dt: 16TH JUNE, 2026 Negi

2 HIMANS HU NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=bb3b60774012c1ef1dae20d13aaf1 16e73351fdaf6878326386908a7f90d5757, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=75BD9D0FB7F4A80990FC51 A722A6BC552D470EB4FD2F88DDF7C18DB 2A1524A4D, cn=HIMANSHU NEGI Date: 2026.06.17 10:41:53 +05'30'

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.