M/S Kanha Ji Industries vs. State Of Haryana And Others

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner had filed a rectification application under Section 161 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, to address the alleged error in the original order where a voluntary tax payment of ₹13,09,998/- was not reflected, leading to a demand of ₹14,49,022/- with interest and penalty. The Court observed that the Additional Commissioner had rejected the rectification application without delving into its merits, stating that the original order was passed after considering all documents and that there was no need for rectification. However, the respondents' counsel conceded that the rectification application could be decided afresh on merits. Therefore, the Court decided to dispose of the writ petition by directing the concerned officer/authority to decide the rectification application filed by the petitioner on 10.04.2024 purely on merits, in terms of Section 161 of the Act. The Court further stipulated that if any aspect was not considered in the order-in-original, it should be looked into, and a fresh order passed. If the petitioner remained aggrieved, they would be allowed to avail other remedies.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Kanha Industries, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 26.03.2024 passed by the respondents. The petitioner had voluntarily paid tax amounting to ₹13,09,998/- through Form DRC-03. However, this payment was not reflected in the original order, and instead, a demand of ₹14,49,022/- with interest and penalty was imposed. The petitioner subsequently filed a rectification application on 10.04.2024, seeking to correct this apparent error. The Additional Commissioner, CGST, Panchkula, by an order dated 15.05.2024, rejected the rectification application, stating that the original order was passed after considering all available documents and that there was no need for rectification. The petitioner then approached the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the rectification application by the Additional Commissioner, CGST, Panchkula, under Section 161 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was justified, considering the petitioner's voluntary payment of tax through Form DRC-03 which was allegedly not reflected in the original order? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the order-in-original erroneously imposed a demand of ₹14,49,022/- with interest and penalty, despite the petitioner having already paid ₹13,09,998/- voluntarily through Form DRC-03. This omission constituted an error apparent on the face of the record, which should have been rectified under Section 161 of the Act. They relied on the fact that the rectification application was filed to correct this oversight. Revenue's contention: The respondents, through their counsel, candidly stated that the rectification application could be decided afresh by examining it on merits. They did not present a detailed argument against the petitioner's claim but agreed to a fresh examination of the application.