Heard Shri D. Saraf, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Shri P.K. Dhar learned Sr. G.A. appearing for respondent Nos.2, 4, 5 & 6 and Mr. B. Majumder, learned CGC appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3 for final disposal of the petition.

Petition involves a short question. Petitioner is a dealer registered under various GST Acts. The Superintendent of GST had issued a notice on 13th May, 2019 pointing out that there were discrepancies in the petitioner’s declaration of outward supply for the financial years 2017-2018 in the declarations made in GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B. To this notice the petitioner replied under a communication dated 3rd July, 2019. Along with this communication, he also had filed reply in prescribed proforma. The explanation of the petitioner was that the outward supply of ₹ 4,57,92,600/- (rounded off) showing GSTR-1 was inadvertently not shown in GSTR 3B. However, the same was later on rectified by showing it in GSTR 3B for the month of March, 2019 along with which the petitioner had also paid the tax of ₹ 54,95,112/-.

The Superintendent passed an order dated 4th October, 2019 and demanded the tax amount of ₹ 54,95,111/- with penalty and interest. This order the petitioner challenged before the appellate authority. Appellate authority dismissed the appeal by impugned order dated 01.02.2021 on the ground that the petitioner failed to file certified copy of the order passed by the adjudicating authority.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had filed a copy of the order passed by the Superintendent as supplied to the petitioner. If there was any defect in supplying the copy, it was not within the powers of the petitioner to have it corrected. In any case, the appeal of the petitioner could not have been dismissed on the ground that he filed a defective copy. More fundamentally counsel submitted that the Superintendent demanded tax with interest and penalty after observing that the petitioner had failed to respond to his notice. Thus the Superintendent failed to take into account the valid defence raised by the petitioner in the reply to the show-cause notice while pointing out that the discrepancy in the declarations was later on rectified and necessary tax was also paid. We, however, agree that the petitioner had not paid interest on delayed payment of the tax.

Be that as it may, when the Superintendent has proceeded on the basis that the petitioner had failed to reply to his show-cause notice when the petitioner had actually filed the reply, let the Superintendent pass a fresh order after considering the reply of the petitioner. For such purpose, the order passed by the Superintendent dated 4th October, 2019 and the appellate order dated 01.02.2021 are set aside. The proceedings are placed back before the Superintendent for fresh consideration and disposed of in accordance with law. The amount of pre-deposit which the petitioner has made in order to pursue the appeal shall be subject to further order that the Superintendent may pass of course subject to further right of appeal of the petitioner.

With these observations, petition is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.