Rectification Valid Where GST Orders Were Contradictory | HC

Case Details: Winter Wood Designers & Contractors India (P.) Ltd vs. State Tax Officer - [2025] 175 taxmann.com 686 (Kerala)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Ziyad Rahman A.A., J.
• K.S. Hariharan Nair, Rajath R Nath, Dheeraj Sasidharan, Smt. G. Remadevi and Smt. Harima Hariharan, Advs. for the Petitioner.
• Arun Ajay Sankar, G.P for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner received two conflicting orders. One order accepted the explanation and dropped the proceedings, and the other rejected the explanation and finalised the proceedings against it. The petitioner highlighted the duplication of orders and sought rectification. The rectification sought by the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner failed to submit the rectification application within the statutory period of six months as contemplated under section 161 of the GST Act. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before the Kerala High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that since there was duplication of orders based on two proceedings initiated alleging the same irregularities, there was an error apparent on record. Therefore, the authority ought to have invoked powers of rectification under section 161, as the error was brought to its notice within the statutory period.Non-invocation of powers of rectification was not proper.