Order Rejecting Rectification Application Upheld as Application Was Vague and Lacked Any Substantial Contention | HC

Case Details: Vinay Kumar Gupta vs. State of U.P. - [2025] 173 taxmann.com 201 (Allahabad)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Arun Bhansali, CJ. & Kshitij Shailendra, J.
• Aditya Pandey, for the Petitioner.
• Ankur Agarwal, S.C. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner was issued a notice under Section 61 of the CGST Act/Uttar Pradesh GST Act, to which a reply was submitted. Thereafter, an order was passed under Section 73 on the ground that the reply was not satisfactory. The petitioner filed an application for rectification of the said order under Section 161, which was dismissed by the authority on the ground that there was no justification for rectification. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court, contending that the impugned order was non-speaking and had been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing.

High Court Held

The Hon’ble High Court held that the nature of the application filed by the petitioner for rectification was completely vague and no contention was raised therein. It held that the authority was justified in rejecting the said application, and there was no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.