SGST High Court Cases

GST – Scope of third proviso to Section 161 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Rectification of errors apparent on the face of record, Rejectiong of rectification application, Principles of Natural Justice - Whether the authority is statutorily bound under the third proviso to Section 161 of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017, to grant a personal hearing before rejecting a rectification application filed by an assessee – HELD – The word "rectification" signifies a positive act of correction or amendment, resulting in an alteration of the original order. The third proviso to Section 161 is triggered only when two cumulative conditions are fulfilled, first, there must be a "rectification" (an alteration), and second, that rectification must "adversely affect" a person. When a rectification application is merely dismissed, the original order stands unaltered. In such a case, no "rectification" has occurred - The expression "such rectification" in the proviso cannot be interpreted to include a "refusal to rectify". Since the primary condition for invoking the proviso i.e. the act of rectification itself is absent, the consequential requirement to follow the principles of natural justice does not arise – The “refusal to rectify” cannot be read into the expression “such rectification.” The legislature consciously specified the situation where natural justice must be followed and it is not for the Court to expand the scope to include situations, such as the dismissal of an application, that are not envisaged by the plain text of the statute - Disagreeing with earlier precedents that suggested otherwise, it is that a refusal to rectify does not fall within the ambit of the third proviso to Section 161 of the Act - The writ appeal is dismissed

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page