Sr. No.146 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 07.04.2026 JVT TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED …PETITIONER Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS …RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Rishab Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Mamta Singla Talwar, DAG, Haryana.

***

DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)

Through an adjudication order dated 02.02.2024, passed under Section 74 of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax (HGST) Act, 2017 (for short- the Act), the petitioner was required to pay assessed tax for the assessment year 2017-18. On 27.02.2024, an application was filed by the petitioner, under Section 161 of the Act, seeking therein rectification of the aforesaid adjudication order dated 02.02.2024. While the petitioner’s rectification application was pending, it knocked the doors of this Court through CWP-16517-2024-M/s JVT Trading Private Limited Vs. State of Haryana and another, challenging therein the afore referred adjudication order dated 02.02.2024. However, through order of this Court dated 18.07.2024, the petitioner was relegated to avail its statutory remedy that may be available to it, in accordance with law.

2. On 13.08.2024, the petitioner filed an appeal to challenge therein the adjudication order dated 02.02.2024. Along with its appeal, an application for condonation of delay was filed. The petitioner brought to the notice of the appellate authority that the petitioner’s rectification application dated 27.02.2024, filed by it for rectification of the adjudication order dated 02.02.2024 was pending. However, without deciding the petitioner’s rectification application, through order dated 19.09.2024, the Appellate Authority dismissed the petitioner’s appeal on the ground of delay. The order of the Appellate Authority dated 19.09.2024 is the subject matter of challenge through this petition primarily on the ground that such order could and should have not been passed during the pendency of the petitioner’s rectification application filed by it under Section 161 of the Act, seeking therein rectification of the adjudication order dated 02.02.2024.

3. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and with their able assistance, the records of the case have also been perused.

4. The petitioner’s statutory appeal filed against the adjudication order dated 02.02.2024 has been dismissed through the impugned order dated 19.09.2024. Such dismissal is during the pendency of the petitioner’s application, filed by it under Section 161 of the Act, seeking therein rectification of the adjudication order dated 02.02.2024. Before dismissal of the petitioner’s statutory appeal, filed by the petitioner to challenge the adjudication order, it was desirable that the petitioner’s application, filed by it for rectification of the adjudication order should have been decided.

5. Learned counsel for the State also acknowledges the above but submits that the petitioner’s rectification application, which had been physically filed, could not be decided earlier because it had been misplaced but that the same has now been retrieved.

6. In the light of the above, we set aside the Appellate Authority’s order dated 19.09.2024 (Annexure P-13) and direct the respondent-State to take a final decision on the petitioner’s application dated 27.02.2024, through which the petitioner seeks rectification of the adjudication order dated 02.02.2024, but only after granting opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and through passing of a reasoned order.

7. The needful be done within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(DEEPAK SIBAL)

JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI)

JUDGE

07.04.2026 Prince