2019 (6) TMI 1338 - HC - GST

Rectification of two entries in the purchase details already submitted by the petitioners - HELD THAT - To test the reasonableness of the findings and the procedure followed by the respondents while rejecting the request, a few permutations and combinations are illustratively tested during and in the course of arguments. At the bottom of above effect a concrete solution warranting dismissal of writ petitions is not made out and so many questions now raised by the petitioners are remain unanswered. This Court keeping in view the stage at which the request is made namely that even before the initiation of penal proceedings is of the view that the issue decided in Ext.P2 requires re-consideration by the 1st respondent. This Court since is unable to accept the findings recorded by the 1st respondent and however at the same time does not want to record a finding by examine the merits of case now pleaded by the petitioners is of the view that after Ext.P2 order could be set aside the matter remitted to 1st respondent for consideration and disposal by keeping in mind the standard accountancy practices, the effect of proposed rectification and pass orders within four weeks from today - Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Ext.P2 issued by the 1st respondent refusing rectification of purchase details entries; Interpretation of Section 42 of the Act and effect of transactions on standard accountancy practices; Scope of judicial review under Article 226 for grievance; Reasonableness of rejection of request by the respondents; Reconsideration of Ext.P2 order by the 1st respondent.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged Ext.P2 issued by the 1st respondent, which refused rectification of purchase details entries. The petitioner argued that the respondents erred in appreciating their power under Section 42 of the Act and the effect of transactions on standard accountancy practices. They contended that the omissions to be rectified were bona fide and required objective consideration by the respondents. The petitioner sought re-consideration of the issue decided in Ext.P2 by the 1st respondent.

The learned Government Pleader argued that the parameters of the grievance did not fall within the scope of judicial review under Article 226. However, the Court found that the reasonableness of the findings and the procedure followed by the respondents in rejecting the request needed to be tested. Despite attempts to convince the Court, a concrete solution warranting dismissal of the writ petitions was not established, leaving many questions unanswered. The Court believed that the issue decided in Ext.P2 required re-consideration by the 1st respondent.

The Court, unable to accept the findings of the 1st respondent, decided to set aside Ext.P2 and remit the matter back to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration. The Court emphasized the importance of standard accountancy practices and the effect of the proposed rectification in the decision-making process. The petitioners were directed to appear before the 1st respondent on a specified date and were given the liberty to file additional representation for further details challenging Ext.P2.

In conclusion, the Court set aside Ext.P2 and remitted the matter to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration within a specific timeframe. The petitioners were instructed to provide additional details for the reconsideration of their request. The writ petitions were ordered accordingly.