Winter Wood Designers & Contractors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)
Rectification power is not limited to taxpayer requests; officers can act suo motu on apparent errors – Kerala High Court.
Key Issue: Whether rectification under Section 161 of the CGST Act, 2017, can be denied solely on the ground of non-filing through the GST portal, despite the error being apparent on the face of record and having been brought to the officer’s notice within the statutory time frame.
Facts:
The petitioner challenged an order on the grounds that an earlier show-cause notice (‘SCN’) for same financial year, involving same issue was dropped after accepting the petitioner’s explanation. However, another officer later issued a fresh SCN on the same issue, resulting in a contradictory assessment order.
Therefore, the contradictory order passed was a mistake apparent from record and was eligible for rectification. However, the petitioner filed an application through email. Nonetheless, the rectification request was later rejected on the ground that it was not formally uploaded on the GST portal.
The Court held that Section 161 permits rectification of any error apparent on the face of the record, and this power is not confined to applications filed through a particular mode. Once an error is brought to the officer’s attention, whether through a formal application or otherwise, the officer can and must exercise rectification powers.
