2026-VIL-1066-DEL
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-1066-DEL

SGST High Court Cases

GST - Validity of Corrigendum rectifying Portal Order and Authentication of Unsigned Annexure in GST Adjudication - Section 161 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Petitioner received Portal Order stating that proceedings under Section 73 stand dropped for reasons stated in Annexure, but the incorporated Annexure recorded rejection of petitioner's explanation and quantified a demand with interest and penalty. Petitioner challenged the validity of subsequent Corrigendum which clarified that relief was granted on three issues while demand on fourth survived, contending that the digitally signed Portal Order recording proceedings as dropped must prevail over the unsigned Annexure and that demand could not be sustained through unsigned Annexure or Corrigendum - Whether an unsigned Annexure expressly incorporated in a digitally signed adjudication order can be enforced and Corrigendum rectifying apparent error in Portal Order under Section 161 is valid - HELD - The digitally signed Portal Order expressly incorporates and adopts the reasons and details stated in the Annexure and discloses an internal contradiction as it records both that proceedings stand dropped and that demand is quantified on fourth issue. The Annexure stood incorporated and adopted as part of the digitally authenticated Portal Order and cannot be treated as an independent unsigned order requiring separate authentication - The composite order when read as a whole shows that the fourth issue was decided against the Petitioner, and the Corrigendum merely corrects this inconsistent portal recital by preserving the relief on three issues and repeating findings and amounts already recorded on fourth issue, neither supplementing reasons for disallowance nor enlarging demand, and therefore falls within Section 161 rectification - The Corrigendum neither withdraws any relief granted by that order nor enlarges the demand. It merely corrects the inconsistent portal statement. The rectification therefore did not adversely alter the Petitioner’s position under the original adjudication so as to attract the third proviso to Section 161 of the CGST Act - Once the Corrigendum is found to be a rectification of the original order, rather than a fresh adjudication, the expiry of the period for completing the original adjudication does not render the subsequent correction invalid - The Corrigendum issued within six-month prescribed period under Section 161 - If so advised, the Petitioner may prefer an appeal against the order, including its Annexure, read with the Corrigendum - The writ petition is dismissed
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GST & Customs updates: Sep'26
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Security-Code
New Code?

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Security-Code
New Code?

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?