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

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Kajah Enterprises (P) Ltd., represented by its Director, 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 had rejected the petitioner's rectification application 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, and required substantive examination beyond the scope of rectification.

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner's counsel sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh writ petition to challenge 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 Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty granted to the petitioner. The Court did not delve into the merits of the rectification application or the respondent's rejection order. The issue of whether the error was indeed 'apparent on the face of the record' was not decided by the Court as the petition was withdrawn.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's rectification application, filed under Section 161 of the TNGST Act, was rightly rejected by the respondent on the grounds that the error did not fall within the scope of 'errors apparent on the face of the record' as defined under the TNGST and CGST Acts, 2017? The petitioner argued that they sought a direction for the respondent to consider their rectification application after affording a hearing. The respondent contended that the rectification application was rejected because the error raised by the petitioner was not an 'error apparent on the face of the record' but required substantive examination, which is beyond the purview of Section 161 of the TNGST Act and Section 161 of the CGST Act, 2017. The respondent relied on the principles governing rectification of mistakes.