JUDGMENT :

Ashish Naithani, J.

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Petitioner, M/s Amit Auto Sales and Spare Parts, through its proprietor, challenging two orders passed under the provisions of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

2. The first is the assessment order dated 09.04.2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Tanakpur, whereby tax of Rs. 2,12,060, interest of Rs. 2,11,038, and penalty  of Rs. 21,206 were imposed under Sections 73, 50 and 122 of the Act for the financial year 2018–19.

3. The second is the appellate order dated 01.07.2025, passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Haldwani,whereby the statutory appeal preferred by the Petitioner was dismissed as barred by limitation. The Petitioner prays for quashing of both the aforesaid orders and for protection from coercive recovery, contending that the delay was bonafide and that the assessment order suffers from procedural and factual infirmities.

4. The Petitioner is a registered dealer under the Goods and Services Tax laws, engaged in the retail trade of automobile parts and accessories under the trade name M/s Amit Auto Sales and Spare Parts. He holds a valid registration bearing GSTIN No. 05ARVPJ0788L2Z1 and has been regularly filing monthly returns in Forms GSTR-3B and GSTR-1. His principal place of business is situated within the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Tanakpur, District Champawat.

5. For the financial year 2018–19, the Petitioner’s returns were selected for scrutiny by the Department. Upon examination of the returns, a notice in FORM ASMT-10 dated 21.02.2023 was issued to the Petitioner under Section 61 of the Act, pointing out discrepancies between the ITC claimed in GSTR-3B and that reflected in GSTR-2A.

6. It was alleged that the Petitioner had claimed an excess input tax credit of Rs. 2,12,060.59, which appeared to be ineligible. The notice further alleged a delay in the filing of monthly returns, thereby attracting liability to pay interest under Section 50 of the Act. The Petitioner was required to furnish a reply with supporting documents within fifteen days.

7. In response to the aforesaid notice, the Petitioner submitted that the alleged excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) arose from a mere accounting mismatch, which had already been voluntarily reversed in the return filed for April 2019, pertaining to the subsequent financial year 2019–20. It was clarified that the discrepancy was purely clerical in nature and did not involve any suppression of facts or intent to evade tax. The Petitioner further stated that, since the ITC reversal had already been effected, no additional tax liability subsisted and the proceedings, therefore, deserved to be closed.

8. Thereafter, the Department issued an intimation in FORM DRC-01A dated 26.10.2023 under Section 73(5) of the Act, quantifying the proposed demand at Rs. 4,44,304 comprising tax of Rs. 2,12,060, interest of Rs. 2,11,038 and penalty of Rs. 21,206, and inviting the Petitioner to pay the same or submit further objections within thirty days. The Petitioner, through FORM DRC-01A Part-B filed on 05.04.2024, reiterated its earlier stand that the excess ITC had already been reversed and requested closure of proceedings.

9. Despite such a reply, a show cause notice in FORM DRC-01 dated 26.12.2023 was issued by the Assistant Commissioner proposing the determination of tax, interest and penalty under Sections 73, 50 and 122 of the Act. The Petitioner again asserted that the reversal of ITC was already reflected in the subsequent return and prayed for the dropping of the proceedings. However, the Assistant Commissioner, without accepting the explanation, passed the order-in-original dated 09.04.2024 confirming the proposed demand of Rs. 4,44,304 for the financial year 2018–19.

10. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Petitioner preferred a statutory appeal unde