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, and to afford them a hearing. The respondent, through the Government Advocate, submitted that the petitioner's rectification application, pertaining to Assessment Year 2020-2021, was rejected on 28.03.2025. The rejection was based on the ground that the error cited 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.

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner's counsel sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh writ petition challenging the rectification order. The Court recorded this submission and the endorsement made by the petitioner's counsel. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition as prayed for. No specific finding was made by the Court on the merits of the rectification application or the respondent's rejection order, as the matter was disposed of on the petitioner's request for withdrawal. The issue of whether the error was indeed apparent on the face of the record was not adjudicated upon by the Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent erred in rejecting the petitioner's rectification application under Section 161 of the TNGST Act on the grounds that the error was not apparent on the face of the record, thereby denying the petitioner an opportunity for substantive examination? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 161 of the TNGST Act and the interpretation of 'error apparent on the face of the record' under the TNGST and CGST Acts, 2017). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought a direction to consider their rectification application after affording a hearing. (Implicitly, the petitioner believed their application had merit and should be considered). Respondent's contention: The respondent argued that the rectification application was correctly rejected because the error raised did not fall within the limited scope of 'errors apparent on the face of the record,' which are restricted to clerical, arithmetical, or typographical mistakes. The issue required substantive examination beyond the scope of apparent errors.