M/S. Dwarka Prasad Jagdish Prasad, Dhenkanal vs. Chief Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack

1. Mrs. Wallace, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, her client had applied for rectification of order dated 8th March, 2024 made under section 73 of Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. She submits, her client can so apply under section 161 in Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The application was rejected by order dated 11th September, 2024. Her client was not given opportunity of hearing. She seeks interference.

Mr. Mishra, learned advocate, Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State revenue and submits, there is no mandate to give hearing on an application for rectification of error apparent on face of the record. Impugned order cannot be said to be adverse to petitioner therefore, there was no question of giving hearing. All that was said is, there was no apparent error and petitioner told that if dissatisfied with the assessment, it may prefer appeal. Mr. Kedia, learned advocate, Jr. Standing Counsel appears on behalf of Central revenue.

On query from Court Mrs. Wallace submits, her client’s application is at pages 35 to 37. On perusing impugned order and attached thereto reason we are unable to see what rectification was sought, as considered to find no error in said order dated 11th September, 2024. We reproduce below impugned order and the reason given. “... ... ... But you have not provided any supporting document and section as per GST Law. ... ... ...”

We are not inclined to take a view on whether petitioner was entitled to hearing in support of its rectification application. However, section 161 does allow the assessee to apply for rectification within time prescribed. It appears such application was made. Impugned order does not disclose any reason for rejection thereof.

Mrs. Wallace submits, her client is affected by order dated 25th September, 2023. Hence, it applied for rectification. In that view of the matter third proviso requires notice of hearing to be given to his client. Mr. Mishra responds, only if the rectification adversely affects the assessee, is he entitled to hearing. That means, if there is enhancement by the rectification then the assessee is to be heard.

Section 161 clearly provides for, inter alia, affected person to apply for rectification. The third proviso says, where the rectification adversely affects any person, he is to be given hearing. The authority in already having passed impugned order, hereby set aside, had decided no rectification was necessary. That was continuation of the assessee feeling it stood affected by order dated 25th September, 2023. Appeal against the assessment order would be on merits. That is why the statute provides for rectification.

The authority will deal with the rectification application on restoration in accordance with law.

The writ petition is disposed of.