Order Date – 09 June 2025

Parties: M/S. WINTER WOOD DESIGNERS & CONTRACTORS INDIA PVT. LTD Vs THE STATE TAX OFFICER WORKS CONTRACT, THE STATE TAX OFFICER, TAXPAYER SERVICES CIRCLE, THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ARREAR RECOVERY) OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, TAXPAYER SERVICES, ERNAKULAM

Facts –

• The Petitioner, M/s Winter Wood Designers & Contractors India Pvt. Ltd., was issued two identical show-cause notices based on the same discrepancies for FY 2017–18. Proceedings under the first notice were dropped via Ext.P7 after accepting petitioner’s explanation. However, a contradictory order (Ext.P8) was later passed based on the second notice, finalizing the matter against the petitioner. 
• The petitioner sought rectification of this error by submitting a request via email on 01.02.2024 (Ext.P9). Despite this being within the six-month statutory period under Section 161 of the GST Act, the request was rejected solely because it was not uploaded through the GST Portal.

Issue –

• Whether the rejection of the rectification application on the ground of non-submission through portal was valid?

Order –

• The Single Bench of Hon’ble High Court observed that it is a fact that, by the time Order was passed against the petitioner, Ext.P7 was already there, by which the explanation offered by the petitioner was accepted and the proceedings dropped. Therefore the second order could not have been passed. This would lead to an irresistible conclusion that, as far as Ext.P8 order is concerned, there is an apparent error on the face of records.
• Therefore, when such a serious error was clearly pointed out before the competent authority, within the statutory period contemplated under Section 161 for rectification, such authority could not have refrained from invoking the powers of rectification.
• In view of the fact that, non invocation of the powers of rectification under Section 161 by the respondent was not at all proper. Therefore, the reason which formed the basis of Ext.P14, by which the request of the petitioner was declined, cannot be said to be legally sustainable.
• In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of.