GST Update

Desk of CA. Praveen Sharma – 847 Series (CAPS)

Delhi High Court in the case of Future Consumer Limited

Petition: Future Consumer Ltd. challenged an order-in-original dated 24 Aug 2024, alleging it lacked the adjudicating officer’s signature.

Department’s reply: The Revenue argued that the DRC-07 form contains the officer’s name and designation, and from 1 June 2024 the GST portal mandates upload of orders with officer credentials.

Unsigned-order issue: The Court held that when a DRC-07 accompanies the order with officer details, absence of signature on the PDF/order copy doesn’t invalidate it.

Rectification plea: The petitioner’s rectification request under Section 161 was rejected without granting a personal hearing.

Natural justice: The Court observed that the third proviso to Section 161 requires a hearing when rectification affects the taxpayer adversely.

Supporting precedent: Cited HVR Solar Pvt Ltd v. STO Ward 67 (Delhi HC) and Suriya Cement Agency (Madras HC) to reaffirm that personal hearing is mandatory before rejecting rectification.

Relief granted: The rectification order dated 26 Dec 2024 was set aside, and the petitioner was allowed to file an appeal against the main order.

Direction: If the appeal is filed by 30 Nov 2025 with pre-deposit, it must be heard on merits and not dismissed for limitation; a reasoned order should follow.

Link: CA. Praveen Sharma on Linkedin

Regards

CAPS