IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

HON’BLE MR. G. NARENDAR, C.J.

HON’BLE MR. ASHI SH NAI THANI , J

Writ Petition (M/B) No.212 of 2025

M/s Kumaon Rosin Industries ........ Petitioner

Versus

Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax and another

…..Respondent

Presence

Mr. Tarun Pande, learned counsel for the Petitioner.

Ms. Pooja Banga, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

Per:Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

1. The Petitioner, M/s Kumaon Rosin Industries, is a proprietorship

concern engaged in wholesale trading, having obtained Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration bearing GSTIN 05AGJPM4162E1ZL with effect from 01.07.2017. The business is carried on through its proprietor, Shri Ankur Mahajan, resident of Haldwani, District Nainital, Uttarakhand. The Petitioner subsequently applied for cancellation of its

GST registration, which was allowed with effect from 30.11.2017.

2. On 27.01.2023, an intimation in Form DRC-01A was uploaded on the

GST portal by the Respondent authorities, alleging excess claim of

input tax credit (ITC) for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018.

3. Thereafter, on 22.08.2023, a Show Cause Notice (SCN) in Form DRC-

01 was issued and uploaded on the GST portal, proposing to disallow ITC amounting to ₹1,52,994.12/- on the ground of a mismatch between the ITC claimed in GSTR-3B and the ITC reflected in GSTR-2A. The SCN further proposed to levy interest under Section 50 and penalty under Section 122(2) of the CGST/UKGST Act. No physical copy of the notice was admittedly served upon the Petitioner.

4. Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner, Haldwani, Sector-3, passed an order-in-original dated 04.11.2023 (hereinafter “the impugned order”) under Section 73 of the CGST/UKGST Act. By this order, the Respondent confirmed the demand of ₹1,52,994.12/- towards excess ITC along with interest and penalty, without affording the Petitioner any opportunity of personal hearing as contemplated under Section

75(4) of the Act.

5. The Petitioner asserts that since the cancellation of its registration in

2017, it was not accessing the GST portal and was unaware of the proceedings initiated against it, as no notice or order was served through physical or alternative statutory modes prescribed under Section 169 of the Act.

6. The Petitioner further submits that the mismatch arose due to an error committed by one of its suppliers, Triumphant Institute of Management Education Pvt. Ltd., which had inadvertently reported supplies in the B2C column instead of the B2B column in its GSTR-1 returns. Certificates acknowledging such mistakes were subsequently issued by the said supplier in terms of Circular No. 183/15/2022 dated 27.12.2022, issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, clarifying that such clerical mismatches could be corrected.

7. It is also on record that the availability of an appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act was uncertain when the impugned order was passed. A Division Bench of this Court, by judgment dated 20.06.2022 in Special Appeal No. 123 of 2022, had held that orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner were not appealable. That judgment was subsequently reviewed on 24.06.2024, recognizing that such orders were indeed appealable. However, by the time the appellate remedy was clarified, the limitation prescribed under Section 107(4) had lapsed, leaving the Petitioner without an effective statutory remedy.

8. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 04.11.2023, the Petitioner approached this Court by way of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the demand of tax, interest, and penalty, inter alia, on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice, improper service of notice, and absence of effective appellate remedy at the relevant time.

9. Heard Mr. Tarun Pande, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. Pooja Banga, learned Brief Holder for the State, perused the records.

10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Tarun Pande, contends