Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36861-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 998 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Gupta Respondent :- State of U.P. and another Counsel for Petitioner :- Aditya Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Ankur Agarwal (S.C.) Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. This petition is directed against order dated 28.10.2024 passed by Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Orai, whereby application filed by the petitioner under Section 161 Goods and Services Act, 2017 (for short 'the Act') has been dismissed. 2. The petitioner was issued notice under Section 61 of the Act on 04.10.2023 to which, a reply was filed, which was not found satisfactory and therefore, notice under Section 73 of the Act was issued. 3. The Authority, after going through the various pleas, raised by the petitioner, passed the order dated 30.04.2024. After passing of the said order, the petitioner filed application under Section 161 of the Act seeking rectification in the order (Annexure No. 6). The Authority, by the order impugned, dismissed the application under Section 161 of the Act by holding that there was no justification for rectification of the order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the order impugned is non-speaking and that the same has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. It was submitted that the petitioner, had filed detailed response to the show cause notice, however, the order was wrongly passed and petitioner was required to file rectification application, which also has been dismissed by non-speaking order and therefore, the same deserves to be set aside. 5. Learned Standing Counsel supported the order impugned. Submissions have been made that the rectification application filed was so cursory that the Authority was justified in passing the order impugned and as such, the same does not call for any interference. Further submissions have been made that the order, though is appealable, the petitioner, after losing limitation of filing appeal, has chosen to approach this Court under writ jurisdiction, which should not be entertained and therefore, the petition deserves dismissal. 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 7. The provisions of Section 161 of the Act, which deals with rectification of errors apparent on face of record, inter alia, provides for rectification of errors, which are apparent on face of record and the third proviso provides that where the 'rectification adversely affects any person, principles of natural justice shall be followed by the authority carrying out such rectification'. The provision of Section 161 of the Act to the extent it provides for following principles of natural justice, the same is confined to cases where (i) rectification is to be carried out and (ii) such rectification adversely affects any person (assessee). 8. In the present case, on account of nature of application filed, which was absolutely vague and except for reproducing table, no contention was raised, the Authority did not find any reason to accept the prayer for rectification and as such, once no rectification has been carried out, there is no question of the petitioner getting affected and therefore, it cannot be said that the application could not have been rejected without affording opportunity of hearing. 9. So far as the plea raised, pertaining to order being non-speaking, is concerned, as noticed hereinbefore, the application itself was so vague and did not contain any reason except for quoting tables, it cannot be said that the Authority was not justified in rejecting the application by making indications as made in the order impugned. 10. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned on the grounds agitated. 11. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 12.3.2025 Mukesh Pal (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad