Sajal Kumar Das vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Facts

The appellant, Sajal Kumar Das, challenged an order passed by the appellate authority on August 23, 2023, which was made under Section 161 of the W.B.G.S.T. Act. This order was passed pursuant to an application by the original authority (Assistant Commissioner of Revenue) to rectify an earlier appellate order dated November 9, 2022. The original authority had cancelled the appellant's GST registration on January 10, 2022. The appeal filed against this cancellation was allowed on November 9, 2022. Approximately two and a half months later, the original authority sought rectification of this appellate order. The writ petition challenging the rectification order was initially heard by a single judge who declined to pass an interim order. The present appeal is an intra-Court appeal against that refusal.

Held

The Court held that the appellate authority erred in exercising its powers under Section 161 of the W.B.G.S.T. Act. Section 161, similar to Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, allows for the rectification of errors apparent on the face of the record, not for a review of the decision. The Court noted that the application filed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 161 sought to rewrite the entire decision rendered by the appellate authority, which is impermissible. The judgment cited the Supreme Court's decision in Sasi (Dead) through Legal Representatives Vs. Aravindakshan Nair & Ors. to emphasize that a review is permissible only for patent errors and not for correcting erroneous decisions through re-hearing. The appellate authority's order dated August 23, 2023, failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the record and instead rewrote the earlier order, rendering it illegal. Consequently, the appeal and the writ petition were allowed, the rectification order was quashed, and the appellate order dated November 9, 2022, was restored. The respondent was directed to restore the appellant's registration within three weeks.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority, while exercising powers under Section 161 of the W.B.G.S.T. Act, can review or rewrite its earlier decision dated November 9, 2022, when the application filed by the original authority sought to do so? The appellant argued that Section 161 of the W.B.G.S.T. Act, which deals with rectification of errors apparent on the face of the record, does not grant the power of review. They contended that the appellate authority's order dated August 23, 2023, effectively reviewed and rewrote the earlier appellate order, which is impermissible. The appellant relied on the principle that a review is not an appeal in disguise and that rectification is limited to patent errors, not requiring extensive reasoning. The State (respondent) did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding the scope of Section 161.