Harshin Enterprises vs. The Joint Commissioner (Appeals)

Facts

The petitioner, Harshini Enterprises, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent, the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), State Goods & Services Tax Department, to consider and dispose of their application for rectification filed under Section 161 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017. The rectification application, Exhibit P-3, was filed in relation to an order passed by the Appellate Authority, Exhibit P-2, dated December 29, 2022. The respondent's counsel contended that the rectification application was filed beyond the prescribed time limit. However, the petitioner's counsel argued that the order (Exhibit P-2) was dispatched only on February 1, 2024, and received on February 8, 2024, implying the rectification application was filed within time from the date of receipt.

Held

The Court directed the respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's application for rectification (Exhibit P-3) as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. This direction was issued after considering the petitioner's submission that the order under challenge (Exhibit P-2) was received only on February 8, 2024, which would make the rectification application timely. The Court also stipulated that an opportunity of hearing must be afforded to the petitioner before passing the order. The specific issue of whether the rectification application was strictly within the statutory time limit, based on the date of the order versus the date of receipt, was not definitively decided but was implicitly addressed by directing consideration of the application based on the receipt date.

Key Issues

1. Whether the application for rectification filed under Section 161 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, is within the prescribed time limit, considering the date of dispatch and receipt of the order under challenge? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the rectification application was filed within the time limit because the order of the Appellate Authority (Exhibit P-2) was received by them only on February 8, 2024, despite being dated December 29, 2022. They relied on the postal cover as evidence of the dispatch date of February 1, 2024. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that the rectification application was filed beyond the time limit, citing the date of the order (December 29, 2022) as the starting point for calculating the limitation period.