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 an opportunity of hearing. The respondent submitted that the petitioner's rectification application, relating to the Assessment Year 2019-2020, was rejected on 28.03.2025. The rejection was based on the ground that the error cited did not qualify as an 'error apparent on the face of the record' as defined under the TNGST and CGST Acts, 2017, as it required substantive examination beyond self-evident mistakes.

Held

The Court noted the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh writ petition to challenge the rectification order. An endorsement to this effect was made. Recording this submission and endorsement, the Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a fresh writ petition as prayed for. The Court made no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition was closed. The specific issue of whether the rectification application should have been considered or if the error was indeed apparent on the face of the record was not decided on merits, as the petition was withdrawn.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 a reasonable opportunity of hearing? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought a direction for the respondent to consider their rectification application dated 11.03.2025, after providing a hearing. Respondent's contention: The respondent argued that the petitioner's rectification application was rejected on 28.03.2025 because the error raised was not an 'error apparent on the face of the record' as contemplated by the TNGST and CGST Acts, 2017. The respondent stated that rectification is limited to clerical, arithmetical, or typographical errors, and the petitioner's issue required substantive examination, thus falling outside the scope of rectification.