Asika Fintrade Pvt. Ltd., Barbil, Kendujhar v. Assistant Commissioner C.T. & G.S.T., Barbil Circle, Barbil, Keonjhar and Others
BACKGROUND
A show cause notice under Section 73 was issued and an adjudication order was subsequently passed. The appeal against that order was rejected on the ground of delay under Section 107. Thereafter, an application for rectification under Section 161 was filed. The applicant later discovered that the rectification application had already been rejected, although the rejection order had not been communicated.
The order-sheet contained an order dated 30.05.2024 stating that the rejection order could not be generated through the GST portal because of technical problems. However, the actual rejection order placed on record bore the handwritten signature of the Assistant Commissioner dated 30.05.2025. The Department did not dispute the relevant factual position emerging from the certified order-sheets.
COURT OBSERVATIONS
The Court examined the order-sheet and the actual rejection order and found a clear inconsistency between them. The order-sheet dated 30.05.2024 recorded that the rejection order could not be generated because of technical glitches, whereas the actual rejection order was signed by the Assistant Commissioner on 30.05.2025.
The Court therefore found that the impugned rejection order could not be sustained in law. The Court also noted that the applicant had not been afforded adequate opportunity to present its case during the Section 73 proceedings and that relevant records/documents were available or had been uploaded on the portal.
FINAL VERDICT
The Court quashed and set aside the rejection order dated 30.05.2025 passed under Section 161. The matter was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner with a direction to reconsider and dispose of the rectification application after considering the grounds, supporting documents and records.
The applicant was directed to appear before the authority within fifteen working days and the authority was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing and pass an appropriate reasoned order under Section 161, if rectification was warranted.
Other Case Law
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi v. M/s Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd.
An income-tax search assessment framed in the name of an amalgamated company whose merger had been concealed at the return stage and never disclosed until cross-objections were filed. At issue: whether corporate death on amalgamation invalidates an assess
Background. A search assessment for AY 2006-07 was framed in the name...
Read MoreCommissioner of Central Excise vs. Saakeen Alloys Pvt. Ltd.
Whether clandestine/illicit removal of excisable goods can be established and duty demand sustained solely on the basis of retracted confessional statements, in the absence of corroborating positive evidence such as excess raw material purchase, shortage
BACKGROUNDThe assessee, a manufacturer of CTD/Round bars, was subjected to simul...
Read MoreC.H. Robinson Worldwide Freight India Private Limited vs Additional Commissioner, CGST Delhi South & Ors.
Whether a Show Cause Notice issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 is barred by limitation where it was not served upon the assessee at least three months prior to the outer time limit prescribed under Section 73(10) of the CGST Act — and whether
BACKGROUNDThe CGST Department (Delhi-South) conducted a scrutiny of the returns ...
Read More