Alan Info Services Private LTD vs. Thestate Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had invoked the wrong remedy by filing an application under Section 161 of the GST Enactment beyond the prescribed limitation, leading to its rejection. However, acknowledging that the petitioner was attempting to agitate the issue, the Court decided to partially quash the impugned order and remit the case back to the respondent. This relief was granted subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax in cash to the Electronic Cash Register within 30 days. The petitioner was also directed to file a detailed reply to the notice in Form GST DRC-01 within the same period. The respondent was then to pass a fresh order on merits within three months after hearing the petitioner, provided the stipulations were complied with. Failure to comply would result in the writ petition being dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Alan Info Services Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 28.08.2023, passed by the respondent State Tax Officer, confirming a demand proposal notice for the tax period 2022-2023. The petitioner had not replied to the demand proposal notice (Form GST DRC-01) but had previously replied to a notice in Form GST DRC-01-A. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Section 161 of the GST Enactment on 25.02.2025, seeking rectification, which was rejected by the respondent on 07.03.2025, as it was beyond the prescribed limitation. The petitioner acknowledged choosing the wrong remedy and sought relief from the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 28.08.2023, confirming the demand proposal notice, is liable to be quashed for being without jurisdiction and in violation of statutory provisions? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the respondent acted without jurisdiction and in clear violation of statutory provisions in passing the impugned order. While not explicitly stated, the implication is that the procedural lapses or substantive errors in the order warrant its quashing. Respondent's contention: The respondent's actions, as reflected in the judgment, indicate reliance on the petitioner's failure to reply to the demand proposal notice (Form GST DRC-01) and the subsequent rejection of the rectification application due to limitation. The respondent implicitly argued that the petitioner had not followed the prescribed procedures and had approached the wrong forum belatedly.