M/S Digar Dev Upadhyay vs. Commissioner Uttarakhand State G S T Commissionerate Dehradun
Facts
The petitioner, through their learned counsel, filed an application (MCC No. 2 of 2022) seeking correction of a previous order dated 01.11.2022. The original order had remanded the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner, Haldwani. The petitioner argued that the impugned order, which was the subject of the original remand, was actually passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State GST, Dehradun, Sector – I. Therefore, the petitioner requested that the name of the authority to whom the matter was remanded be corrected from 'Deputy Commissioner, Haldwani' to 'Deputy Commissioner, State GST, Dehradun, Sector – I'. The State of Uttarakhand was represented by a learned Brief Holder.
Held
The Court allowed the Miscellaneous Civil Correction application (MCC No. 2 of 2022). The Court found merit in the petitioner's submission that the impugned order, which necessitated the remand, was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State GST, Dehradun, Sector – I, and not the Deputy Commissioner, Haldwani. Consequently, the Court directed that the order dated 01.11.2022 be corrected. Specifically, in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the order dated 01.11.2022, the name 'Deputy Commissioner, Haldwani' was to be substituted with 'Deputy Commissioner, State GST, Dehradun, Sector – I'. The office was directed to carry out the necessary corrections. No specific GST provisions were discussed in relation to the correction of the authority's name.
Key Issues
1. Whether the name of the authority to whom the matter was remanded in the order dated 01.11.2022 should be corrected from 'Deputy Commissioner, Haldwani' to 'Deputy Commissioner, State GST, Dehradun, Sector – I' based on the petitioner's submission that the latter passed the impugned order. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner contended that the impugned order, which was the basis for the remand, was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State GST, Dehradun, Sector – I, and not the Deputy Commissioner, Haldwani. Therefore, for the effective implementation of the remand order, the correct authority's name should be substituted. Revenue/State's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific argument or contention from the learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand regarding this correction application.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
WPMS No. 2683 of 2022 Shri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.
Shri Tarun Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Tarun Lakhera, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. This is an application (MCC No. 2 of 2022) for correction of order dated 01.11.2022 wherein this Court remanded the matter back to Deputy Commissioner, Haldwani. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in place of “Deputy Commissioner, Haldwani” “Deputy Commissioner, State GST, Dehradun, Sector – I” be substituted, as the impugned order is passed by him. Accordingly, MCC No. 2 of 2022 is allowed. Let in the order dated 01.11.2022, in paragraph no. 6 and 7 in place of “Deputy Commissioner, Haldwani” “Deputy Commissioner, State GST, Dehradun, Sector – I” be substituted. Office to carry out the necessary corrections in the order dated 01.11.2022. (Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.) 24.11.2022 (Grant urgent certified copy of this
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.