TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the writ petition deserved to be rejected for making a false averment that no personal hearing was granted and for challenging the appellate order on an alleged violation of natural justice, when the record showed that the petitioner had in fact been heard and the order date contained only a clerical error.
Analysis: The original file and portal record established that the petitioner had been personally heard on 03.11.2025 and had signed the proceedings, and that the impugned order passed under section 107 of the State and Central GST enactments suffered only from a clerical error in recording 30.10.2025 instead of 04.11.2025. The writ petition's central allegation of denial of personal hearing was therefore found to be factually incorrect. The Court also took note of the withdrawal of appearance by counsel after discovering that the petitioner had misled him. In these circumstances, the petition was found to be devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed with costs.
Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected and exemplary costs were imposed, as no breach of natural justice was made out.
Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition founded on a demonstrably false plea of denial of hearing is liable to be rejected, and a mere clerical mistake in the recorded date of an order does not establish a violation of natural justice when the record shows that personal hearing was actually granted.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
