Belated Rectification After Six Years Time-Barred – Merits Challenge Fails | HC
- Blog|News|GST & Customs|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 8 April, 2026

Case Details: Ahamed Usman vs. Deputy Commissioner - [2026] 185 taxmann.com 31 (Kerala)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Devan Ramachandran & Basant Balaji, JJ.
-
P. Raghunathan, Premjit Nagendran & Rishal K., Advs. for the Petitioner.
-
Rajesh K. Raju, Adv. & Smt. Thushara James, Sr. GP for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee filed a writ petition challenging the impugned order and sought a direction to consider a rectification application filed for the correction of returns for the prior periods. It was submitted that the rectification application ought to be considered and the impugned order be set aside on merits. The Department of Revenue submitted that the statutory time limit prescribed for rectification including the extension granted thereunder, had expired in March 2019 and that the application filed in January 2024 was hopelessly time-barred. It was further submitted that the writ petition had been rightly dismissed on the ground of limitation. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the statutory time limit prescribed under Section 39 read with Section 168A of the CGST Act and the corresponding provisions of the Kerala GST Act is mandatory and binding, and that, having expired in March 2019, no rectification application filed thereafter could be entertained. The Court held that the rectification application filed in January 2024 was hopelessly time-barred and that no direction could be issued to consider it. It was further held that recourse to rectification after a prolonged delay constitutes admission of error by the assessee, thereby rendering the challenge to the impugned order on merits untenable. Accordingly, it was held that no ground for interference with the prior judgment and the appeal was dismissed.
List of Cases Referred to
- Rejimon Padickapparambil Alex v. Union of India [2024] 169 taxmann.com 152 (Kerala)/[2025] 107 GST 483 (Ker) (para 5).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.

Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied

CA | CS | CMA