2024 (11) TMI 1552

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....challenging the impugned order dated 24th August, 2024, passed under Section 73 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter, 'the Act') by the Sales Tax Officer, Class II, AVATO, Ward 63, Zone 6, Delhi (hereinafter, 'impugned order'). 3. Additionally, the Petitioner has also challenged the Show Cause Notice dated 21st May, 2024 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Class II, AVATO, Ward 63, Zone 6, Delhi (hereinafter, 'impugned SCN'). 4. Vide the impugned order, a demand of Rs. 27,43,593/- has been confirmed against the Petitioner, for the tax period 2019 to 2020. 5. On the last date of hearing i.e., 7th November, 2025, the following submissions were made by the ld. Counsels for the parties: 5. Ld. Counsel for the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ground could not be tenable. Additionally, it is submitted that in the rectification application no hearing has been granted. 8. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that since the impugned SCN has been uploaded on the 'Additional Notices Tabs', the impugned order would have to be set aside. 9. The Court has considered the matter. After 16th January, 2024, the GST Department modified the GST portal to make the 'Additional Notices Tabs' fully visible to taxpayers. Thus, this ground would not be valid in the present case. 10. However, insofar as the hearing for rectification application under Section 161 of the Act is concerned, in terms of the third proviso to Section 161 of the Act, if the rectification order is to be passed adve....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ersely affects any person, the principles of natural justice shall be followed by the authority carrying out such rectification." 11. This Court in HVR Solar Private Limited vs. Sales Tax Officer Class II Avato Ward 67 & Anr., 2025:DHC:2476-DB, has considered the third proviso to Section 161 of the Act while relying on the decision of the Madras High Court in W.P. (MD) No. 7338 of 2024 titled 'Suriya Cement Agency v. State Tax Officer' (decided on 21st November 2024). The relevant portion of the judgement in Suriya Cement Agency (supra) reads as under: "7. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner had made a Rectification Application. The order of rectification which is impugned would indicate that for the reasons given in the ....