TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1288
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... section 74 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was first issued to the petitioner on 17.06.2021. The petitioner submitted reply thereto on 13.07.2021 and 18.07.2021. Yet, wholly ex-parte order came to be passed by the Adjudicating Officer on 30.01.2025. Plain reading of the said order reveals that no consideration may have been offered to the two replies furnished by the petitioner dated 13.07.2021 and 18.07.2021 in that order. 3. Thereafter, without issuance of any notice to the petitioner, further order came to be passed on 05.02.2025, referable to Section 161 of the Act, whereby, the Adjudicating Authority has first noticed that there was an error in the order dated 30.01.2025, inasmuch as no cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pointed under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or an officer appointed under the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act or by the affected person within a period of three months from the date of issue of such decision or order or notice or certificate or any other document, as the case may be: Provided that no such rectification shall be done after a period of six months from the date of issue of such decision or order or notice or certificate or any other document: Provided further that the said period of six months shall not apply in such cases where the rectification is purely in the nature of correction of a clerical or arithmetical error, arising from any accidental slip or omission: Provided also tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(1980) Supp SCC 420, an inherent / implied power of review, was recognised, in a Court or Tribunal to set aside a palpably erroneous order passed under a misapprehension, to correct a procedural defect, or an inadvertent error, ex debito justitiae, to prevent abuse of its process. In that case, an award passed by the Tribunal was set aside on sufficient cause being shown, for non-appearance of a party. In that context, it was observed as below:- "13. We are unable to appreciate the contention that merely because the ex parte award was based on the statement of the manager of the appellant, the order setting aside the ex parte award, in fact, amounts to review. The decision in Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t error committed by the Tribunal must be corrected ex debito justitiae to prevent the abuse of its process, and such power inheres in every court or Tribunal." (emphasis supplied) 9. Therefore, to the extent, the Adjudicating Authority admits that two replies were furnished by the assessee dated 13.07.2021 and 18.07.2021 and those had not been considered by it in the order dated 30.01.2025, the said order may have remained amenable to procedural review that inheres in the Adjudicating Authority, as denial of opportunity of hearing and not assigning reasons in the Adjudication Order vitiate/taint the proceedings, beyond cure. 10. As to the only objection being pressed by the revenue that the order dated 05.02.2025 is not prejudicia....