TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1585
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icitor General of India with Ms. Sittal Balmiki and Mr. Amit Kumar Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondent No. 2: Mr. Thinlay Dorjee Bhutia, Government Advocate. JUDGMENT PER (ORAL) (A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, C.J.) 1. The Petitioner, a pharmaceutical company having industrial units in the State of Sikkim has filed this instant Writ Petition. The matter arises from a claim for budgetary support under the budgetary support notification under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime to the units located in the States of Jammu & Kashmir, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh and North Eastern States including Sikkim issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Union of India (Respondent No.1) on 05.10.2017 to promote industrial growth. 2. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is Court while hearing this matter on 19.09.2025, passed the following order:- "The matter is fixed today for clarification. During the process of clarification it is noticed that one of the grievances of the Petitioner is that an opportunity of personal hearing was not given to the Petitioner by the Respondent No.6 to enable the Petitioner to clarify the errors made in the claim. Learned Deputy Solicitor General submits that the documentary evidence submitted by the Petitioner was the basis of the computation in the impugned Order. Considered submissions. In the wake of foregoing circumstance, it is hereby ordered that the Respondent No.6 shall afford a personal hearing to the Petitioner to verify the cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ord, there is admittedly a discrepancy between the declaration submitted by the petitioner and the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant. 7. In such circumstances, before concluding the proceedings, the respondent ought to have sought an explanation from the petitioner regarding the discrepancy apparent from the declaration and the CA certificate. It is significant that the CA certificate was produced pursuant to the direction of the respondents themselves. Despite this, the proceedings were concluded without affording the petitioner an opportunity to explain the discrepancy. In such circumstances, the proceedings could not have been validly concluded without due consideration of the discrepancy and without affording an opportun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....act the result of an error or whether the explanation of the petitioner is ultimately acceptable. The limited question is whether, when the discrepancy was apparent from the record, the petitioner ought to have been afforded an opportunity to explain it before the proceedings were concluded. In the considered view of this Court, the answer must necessarily be in the affirmative. 11. The Respondents were required to act fairly. When a discrepancy is apparent on the face of the record, the officer ought to call upon the applicant to explain the same. If the explanation is found unsatisfactory, the officer would be at liberty to proceed to a conclusion on the merits. But the proceedings cannot be concluded without giving the affected party ....