2025:HHC:35455 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16233 of 2025 Date of decision: 16th October,2025 M/s Anjani Plastics and Moulders. ...Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others. …Respondents. Corum Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Mohit Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. Rajat Awasthy, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Sushant Kaprate, Additional Advocate General. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral) Present petition has been filed seeking following substantive relief(s):- “I. Issue a writ of certiorari thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 22.08.2024 passed by Respondents under Section 74(9) of the CGST/SGST Acts, 2017 (Annexure P-5); or/and II. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the consequential recovery proceedings, including the communication/letter dated 13.08.2025 issued to HDFC 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 2025:HHC:35455 Bank, Baddi Branch under Section 79 of the CGST/SGST Acts, 2017 (Annexure P-6);or /and III. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Acts, 2017 instead of invoking Section 74, treating the inadvertent error as a bona fide clerical mistake.” 2. The claim of the petitioner is that for the period 2019-2020 (March, 2020), due to ministerial mistake, petitioner could not deposit Integrated tax Rs.1,97,478/-, Central tax Rs.6,58,879/- and State tax Rs.6,58,879/-, total amounting to Rs.4,76,379/-, but after detecting the mistake, the aforesaid amount was deposited in next quarter in June, 2020. 3. However, the deposit of amount in June, 2020, was not taken into consideration by the respondent-authority, and authority had issued notices, i.e. DRC-01 (show cause/intimation) dated 10.07.2024 (Annexure P-4) and DRC-07 (order) dated 22.08.2024 (Annexure P-5), to pay total sum of Rs.41,21,127/-, i.e. Tax Rs.4,76,379/- + Interest Rs.11,68,368/- + Penalty Rs.14,76,379/-, within 30 days of receipt of notices. Thereafter, respondent-authority had issued directions to the Manager, HDFC, vide notice dated 13.08.2025 under Section 79(1)(e) of the Act, to make payment of a sum of Rs.41,21,129/- to the Government failing which Bank shall be deemed to be a defaulter in respect of the amount specified in the notice and will face consequences of this Act and Rules made thereunder. 4. In the notices issued by the respondent-authority, a demand of Rs.41,21,127/- (Rs.41,21,129/-) has been raised by imposing and 3 2025:HHC:35455 including interest and penalty for non-deposit of tax pertaining to the period 2019-2020, whereas, according to the petitioner, petitioner is not liable to pay interest and penalty as imposed, because a mistake committed by petitioner was rectified immediately by depositing the shortfall in the tax in the next quarter and, therefore, penalty or interest, if any, is to be imposed that should be only for delay of one quarter only and petitioner to pay the same in terms of law as applicable. 5. In response to the petition, Mr. Sushant Kaprate, learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record instructions dated 15.10.2025 received from Assistant Commissioner, State Taxes & Excise (GST), Baddi, District Solan, H.P., whereby it has been informed as under:- “Recovery proceedings were initiated against the RTP and the taxpayer was contacted several times telephonically to pay the Govt. Dues but no reply was submitted by the taxpayer. Thereafter, notice was issued to the petitioner's Banker in FORM GST DRC-13 to Hold the amount of Rs.41,21,129.00 or to pay the same into Govt. Treasury on the behalf of taxpayer as the taxpayer has not filed any Appeal against the aforementioned orders before the appellate Authority. However, on verification of the returns filed by the RTP for the subsequent months of 2021-22, it's evident that the tax liabilities pertaining to the month of March, 2020 and April 2020 have been discharged in the return filed in form GSTR-3B on 13-06-2020 for the month April 2020 and has been duly verified on the GST BO Web Portal.” 4 2025:HHC:35455 6. From the aforesaid instructions, it is apparent that according to respondent, as claimed by the petitioner, tax liability pertaining to the month of March, 2020 and April, 2020 has been discharged in the return filed in form GSTR-3B on 13.06.2020 and it has been duly verified by respondent-authority. 7. In view of above facts and circumstances, now matter is required to be reconsidered by the concerned authority in terms of provisions of CGST/SGST Acts, 2017, especially Section 73. Therefore, impugned notice dated 10.07.2024 (Annexure P-4), impugned order dated 22.08.2024 (Annexure P-5) and notice/communication dated 13.08.2025 (Annexure P-6) are quashed and set aside and, matter is remanded back for reconsideration by the concerned authority by taking into consideration the factual matrix as communicated in the instructions referred supra placed on record by learned Additional Advocate General. Needful be done on or before 30.11.2025. Amount, if any, found payable in connection with subject matter of present petition, shall be paid by petitioner. 8. Needless to say, in view of quashing of communication dated 13.08.2025 (Annexure P-6), the direction issued to the Bank Manager, HDFC, Baddi also stands quashed. 9. Parties are permitted to use downloaded copy of this order from the website of H.P. High Court before the concerned authorities and 5 2025:HHC:35455 concerned authorities, if so required, may verify passing of this order from the website of H.P. High Court. Petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms along with pending applications, if any. (Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge. (Romesh Verma), Judge. 16th October, 2025 (Pardeep)