Tvl.Kajah Enterprises (P) LTD. vs. The Assistant Commissioner (Inspection) (St-Iu)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Kajah Enterprises (P) Ltd., filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent, The Assistant Commissioner (Inspection) (ST-IU), to consider their rectification application dated 11.03.2025, filed under Section 161 of the TNGST Act, after providing a hearing. The respondent informed the Court that the petitioner's rectification application, relating to the Assessment Year 2018-2019, was rejected on 28.03.2025. The rejection was based on the ground that the error cited by the petitioner did not constitute an 'error apparent on the face of the record' as contemplated under the TNGST and CGST Acts, 2017, as it required substantive examination beyond self-evident mistakes. The petitioner's counsel then sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh petition challenging the rejection order.

Held

The Court noted the submission of the respondent that the petitioner's rectification application dated 11.03.2025, relating to the Assessment Year 2018-2019, had been rejected on 28.03.2025. The rejection was based on the respondent's view that the error cited by the petitioner did not qualify as an 'error apparent on the face of the record' under the TNGST and CGST Acts, 2017, as it necessitated substantive examination beyond self-evident mistakes. The Court also recorded the petitioner's counsel's request to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh petition to challenge the rectification order. Based on these submissions, the Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn with the liberty granted to the petitioner. No specific finding was made on the merits of the rectification application itself, as the petition was withdrawn.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's rectification application, filed under Section 161 of the TNGST Act, should be considered by the respondent after affording an opportunity of hearing? The petitioner argued that their application, filed on 11.03.2025, sought rectification of an error and requested a hearing. The respondent contended that the rectification application was rejected on 28.03.2025 because the error cited by the petitioner did not fall within the definition of 'errors apparent on the face of the record' under the TNGST and CGST Acts, 2017. The respondent stated that the provision for rectification is strictly limited to clerical, arithmetical, typographical errors, or other mistakes that are self-evident and do not require detailed scrutiny. Since the issue raised required substantive examination beyond apparent errors, the respondent maintained that the application could not be entertained.