M/S Santosh Auto Spares,Through Its Proprietor, Satyendra Kumar Pandey vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court noted the submission by the Government Advocate that an incorrect order had been mistakenly uploaded on the petitioner's portal and assured that the correct order would be uploaded. The petitioner's counsel then sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file an application for rectification of the mistake under Section 161 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court granted this liberty and disposed of the petition as withdrawn. The Court further directed the respondents to consider and decide the rectification application in accordance with the law. No specific finding was made on the correctness of the original order or the nature of the mistake, as the petition was withdrawn.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Santosh Auto Spares, through its proprietor Satyendra Kumar Pandey, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The petition challenged a final order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the Appellate Authority. The Government Advocate for the respondent/State submitted that by mistake, the order in the case of Ram Shankar Gupta had been uploaded on the petitioner's portal instead of the correct order. The Government Advocate stated that the incorrect order would be withdrawn from the portal and the correct order would be uploaded.

Key Issues

1. Whether the uploaded order on the petitioner's portal is the correct order passed by the Appellate Authority, as per Section 161 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, through their counsel, prayed for withdrawal of the petition with liberty to pursue an application for rectification of the mistake under Section 161 of the CGST Act, 2017, implying an error in the uploaded order. Revenue/State's contention: The Government Advocate acknowledged that an incorrect order (belonging to a different case, Ram Shankar Gupta) was mistakenly uploaded on the petitioner's portal and assured that it would be withdrawn and the correct order uploaded.