Rpj Polymers vs. Commissioner Of Dgst Delhi And Anr.

Facts

The petitioner, RPJ Polymers, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the refusal to rectify the date of cancellation of its GST registration. The petitioner asserted that an error occurred when entering the date of cancellation on the common portal via Form GST REG-16. The intended date was 30.06.2021, but 30.06.2020 was erroneously keyed in. The respondents, Commissioner of DGST Delhi and another, took the position that they lacked the power to effect such rectification. The petitioner relied on Section 161 of the CGST Act, 2017, which deals with the rectification of errors apparent on the face of the record.

Held

The Court held that Section 161 of the CGST Act, 2017, empowers the relevant authority to rectify errors apparent on the face of the record. The Court found that the petitioner's grievance, concerning the incorrect entry of the cancellation date of its registration, qualified as an error that could be rectified under this provision. The Court reasoned that the provision allows for rectification of errors arising from accidental slips or omissions, and the petitioner's assertion of a typographical error in the date falls within this scope. Consequently, the Court set aside the order dated 18.07.2021 (though the specific order being set aside is not detailed in the provided text, it is implied to be the one refusing rectification). The Court directed the respondents to carry out the rectification of the date of cancellation of the petitioner's registration and to incorporate the corrected date on the portal. The respondents were instructed to complete these steps within two weeks of receiving the order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court has the power to direct the rectification of an error in the date of cancellation of GST registration as reflected in Form GST REG-16, where the error is alleged to be an accidental slip or omission, under Section 161 of the CGST Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that Section 161 of the CGST Act, 2017, empowers the relevant authority to rectify errors apparent on the face of the record, including clerical or arithmetical errors arising from accidental slips or omissions. The petitioner contended that the incorrect entry of the cancellation date was such an error and that the authorities should have exercised their power under this section. The respondents argued that they have no power to carry out the rectification sought by the petitioner.