Strict compliance with statutory timelines for rectification applications under the CGST Act is mandatory.

JUDGMENT

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN,J The appellant challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.4468/2024.

2. As evident from the pleadings on record, the appellant questioned the correctness of Ext.P1 order issued by the 1^st respondent; but affirms that he has also filed an application for rectification of the same, albeit after six years from the end of the relevant assessment year.

3. We notice that the prayer of the appellant is that, either this Court set aside Ext.P1; or that the rectification application aforementioned be directed to be considered by the Competent Authority within a time frame.

4. However, the learned Single Judge, after alluding to the mandatory character of Section 39(9) of the CGST Act (for short 'the Act'), has concluded that an application for rectification filed after six years, can never be directed to be considered, particularly when the assessment years pertain to 2017 and 2018. The learned Single Judge also noticed that, as per Ext.R1(a), the period for seeking rectification under the afore Section was extended only until March 2019; but that the appellant did not do so until January 2024. On such holdings, the writ petition has been dismissed.

5. Sri. Rishal.K - learned counsel for the appellant tried to impress upon us that, on merits of the matter, his client is fully entitled to the benefits he has sought for; and he relied upon Rejimon Padicakapparambil Alex v. Union of India [WA No.54/2024] in substantiation. He contended that, when the error was committed by his client inadvertently, he is fully entitled to have at least his rectification application considered in terms of law.

6. Smt.Thushara James - learned Senior Government Pleader, refuted the afore request, saying that, when Section 39(9) of the Act specifically provides for the time frame, within which an applicant for rectification can be made; and when it is conceded that, the appellant did not do so, even after the extended time frame as per Ext.R1(a), any further latitude would be impermissible. She prayed that this appeal be, therefore, dismissed.

7. We have examined the judgment of the learned Single Judge and must record upfront that we find favour with the holdings and conclusions therein.

8. We are persuaded as afore because, as also noticed by the learned Single Judge, Section 39(9) of the Act stipulates a specific time frame, within which an application for rectification ought to be preferred or attempted by an assessee. Pertinently, vide Ext. R1(a), the time for the relevant assessment year had been extended till March

2019.

9. It is expressly admitted by the appellant that, however, he did not file the rectification until January 2024.

10. Obviously, the rectification application can never be directed to be considered as prayed for by the appellant; and we find the learned Single Judge to have acted without error in holding so.

11. Coming to the challenge to Ext. P1, this is an order issued in the year 2022 qua the assessment years 2017 and 2018. When the petitioner himself says that he had filed an application for rectification, it is an admission that there was an error in it attributable to himself. A challenge to Ext.P1, therefore, on its merits becomes untenable.

12. For such reasons, we cannot find any cause to intervene in this matter and we confirm the judgment impugned. 13. After we dictated this part of this judgment, the learned counsel for the appellant sought permission for his client to file a statutory appeal against Ext.P1. We do not propose to speak on this, or to reserve any particular liberty because, if the appellant has any such right, it is