Web Analytics

The Court quashed the second conflicting order and the rejection of the rectification application, holding that issuing contradictory orders on the same issue was an error apparent on record, and the authority should have exercised rectification powers under Section 161 of the CGST Act.

1305 Views

Grounds of Writ-The Petitioner, aggrieved by two conflicting orders issued by the same department on an identical matter, has filed the present Writ Petition. It is submitted that in response to the first Show Cause Notice (SCN), the explanation furnished by the Petitioner was duly accepted, and the proceedings were dropped. However, in respect of the second SCN, despite being based on the same issue, the explanation was rejected, and an adverse order was passed. The Petitioner further states that a rectification application under Section 161 of the CGST Act was filed, but the same was rejected on procedural grounds.

Order-The Court, has ruled in favour of the Petitioner and accordingly disposed of the Writ Petition. The impugned order passed pursuant to the second Show Cause Notice, as well as the rejection of the rectification application, have been quashed. The Court observed that the issuance of two conflicting orders on the same issue constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record. It was further held that the adjudicating authority ought to have exercised its rectification powers under Section 161 of the CGST Act upon receipt of the
rectification application.

GST Case Law Winter Wood Designers & Contractors India Pvt. Ltd. Versus The State Tax Officer

CItation-2025 TAXONATION 1504 (KERALA)

Authors-Bhogavalli Mallikarjuna Gupta & Siddharth Surana

SUBSCRIBE GST E-LIBRARY (INDIA'S HIGHEST GST CASE LAW DATA)

FOR MORE UPDATE ON GST/ IT JOIN OUR FREE WHATSAPP GROUP BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK https://chat.whatsapp.com/C8VB6F6VHme3A061UDQKhj

whatsapp Facebook share link LinkedIn share link Twitter share link Email share link