M/S.Monarch Industrial Products(I) PVT, LTD. vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court directed the petitioner to upload their rectification application on the GST common portal within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Upon such upload, the respondent was directed to consider the rectification petition on its merits and in accordance with law within four weeks thereafter, after providing the petitioner with an opportunity of being heard. The Court also ordered that coercive proceedings against the petitioner would be kept in abeyance until the rectification petition was disposed of. The Court did not decide on the merits of the rectification application itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of its submission and consideration.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Monarch Industrial Products (I) Pvt. Ltd., filed two writ petitions challenging orders dated 29.04.2024, along with Form GST DRC-07, issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Theni. These orders pertained to the tax periods 2017-18 and 2018-19. The petitioner contended that these orders suffered from an error apparent on record and that they had filed rectification applications on 19.06.2024, which had not yet been decided. The respondent revenue authority argued that the rectification applications should have been uploaded to the GST common portal, not submitted manually. The Court was asked to quash the impugned orders and direct the respondent to pass fresh orders after considering the rectification applications.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders dated 29.04.2024, issued by the respondent for the periods 2017-18 and 2018-19, are arbitrary and suffer from an error apparent on record, warranting quashing under Section 226 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the respondent ought to consider the petitioner's rectification applications filed on 19.06.2024 before proceeding with any coercive action based on the impugned orders? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned orders were arbitrary and contained errors apparent on the record. They had filed rectification applications on 19.06.2024, and the respondent had not yet passed any orders on these applications. They sought to quash the impugned orders and direct the respondent to pass fresh orders after considering their rectification applications. Revenue's Contentions: The learned Government Advocate for the respondent submitted that the rectification petitions ought to have been uploaded on the GST common portal, whereas the petitioner had submitted them manually. The respondent stated that if the rectification application were uploaded to the GST portal, it would be considered in accordance with law.