Rectification of conflicting orders under Section 161 of the GST Act can be initiated by the authority on discovering an apparent error, even without a formal application, provided the error is clear.

JUDGMENT :

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J.

1. The petitioner is a private limited company having registration under the provisions of the Central Goods and Service Tax, Act, 2017/Kerala State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The grievance of the petitioner is against Ext.P14 order, by which the rectification sought by the petitioner, in respect of Ext.P8 order, was rejected on the reason that that petitioner failed to submit the rectification application within the statutory period of six months as contemplated under Section 161 of the GST Act. The facts which lead to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

Earlier, highlighting certain discrepancies in the assessment pertaining to the financial year 2017-2018, a show cause notice dated 18.10.2021 was served upon the petitioner, to which a reply was submitted by the petitioner in time. As per Ext.P7, the proceedings thereon were finalized under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act, dropping the proceedings proposed, after accepting the explanation offered by the petitioner. However, simultaneously, yet another show cause notice was also issued by yet another officer, pointing out the very same discrepancies, which culminated in Ext.P7. The said show cause notice dated 28.09.2023, resulted in Ext.P8 order, wherein the explanation offered by the petitioner was rejected and the proceeding was finalized against the petitioner. Ext.P7, by which the proceedings were dropped is dated 08.12.2023 whereas, Ext.P8 order, which is passed against the petitioner is dated 30.12.2023. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner submitted Ext.P9, before the 2^nd respondent who passed Ext.P8 order, highlighting this discrepancy, relating to the duplication of the order. Ext.P9 was submitted on 01.02.2024 by way of an email. Thereafter as there was no response to Ext.P10, representations were submitted in the form of Ext.P12 and P13. Ultimately, the 2^nd respondent, passed Ext.P14 order on 27.01.2025, wherein, the 2^nd respondent accepted the mistake of duplication but rejected the request placed by the petitioner, on the ground that, as the petitioner did not submit a rectification application by uploading through a GST Portal, within the statutory period of six months as contemplated under Section 161 of the GST Act, no interference could be made.

It was in these circumstances, this writ petition was submitted, challenging Ext.P8 and P14 orders.

2. I have heard Sri. K.S. Hariharan Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Arun Ajay Sankar, the learned Government Pleader for the State.

3. As mentioned above, the main challenge is against Ext.P14, which is an order rejecting the request placed by the petitioner, highlighting the duplication of the orders as evidenced by Exts.P7 and P8. As far as the conflicting orders, namely Exts.P7 and P8 are concerned, there is no dispute that the points highlighted in the respective show cause notices which culminated in those orders were the same, but the conclusions were different. It is also evident that, Ext.P7, by which the proceedings were dropped accepting the explanation offered by the petitioner, was the first order. Thus, it is a fact that, by the time Ext.P8 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.

4. When coming to the reasons mentioned in Ext.P14 for rejecting the request of the petitioner, it was only because of the fact that, the rectification application was not filed through the portal within the time limit