9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 974 - HC - GSTValidity of adjudication order - Commissioner (Adjudication), CGST, Delhi (East) is the competent officer - the grievance raised by Mr. Mittal with regard to the competency need not detain us, as, in effect, the contesting respondents have taken the position that, the demand made against the assessee, no longer subsists - HELD THAT - It is only when, the contesting respondents were to recall and/or review the order, this aspect may gain significance, and, at that point in time, the petitioner would be entitled to contest the matter and, perhaps, revive the writ petition. Liberty, in that behalf, is granted in the event such a situation arises. Insofar as Mr. Mittal's grievance, as regards the typographical error, is concerned, he is right. Consequently, the order dated 05.04.2021 shall stand corrected to the extent that Mr. Hriday Singh s rank would be shown as Assistant Commissioner, CGST - Application disposed off.
Issues: Competency of the officer passing adjudication order, Typographical error in the order
Competency of the Officer Passing Adjudication Order: The petitioner challenged the adjudication order, claiming it was issued by an officer not competent to do so. The petitioner argued that the order should have been passed by the Commissioner (Adjudication), CGST, Delhi (East), not the Addl. Commissioner (Adjudication). However, the respondents confirmed that the demand mentioned in the show cause notice had been dropped. The court noted that since the demand was no longer valid, the issue of competency was not crucial at that moment. The court allowed the petitioner the liberty to contest the matter if the respondents were to reconsider the order in the future. Typographical Error in the Order: The petitioner also pointed out a typographical error in the order dated 05.04.2021, where Mr. Hriday Singh was mistakenly referred to as an officer of the Income Tax Department instead of his actual rank as Assistant Commissioner, CGST. The court acknowledged this error and directed the correction of the order to reflect Mr. Hriday Singh's correct designation. The correction was to be made in both the body of the order and alongside the cause title where appearances were recorded. In conclusion, the court disposed of the application by addressing both the issues raised by the petitioner. The court clarified that the competency issue was not a concern since the demand had been dropped, but allowed the petitioner the right to contest if the order was reviewed in the future. Additionally, the court ordered the correction of the typographical error in the order regarding Mr. Hriday Singh's designation.
|
