Ars Traders vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, ARS Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 07.02.2025 passed by the second respondent (State Tax Officer) for the assessment year 2022-2023. This order disposed of the petitioner's application for rectification of a previous order dated 29.10.2024, which was made under Section 161 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner had filed their rectification application on 25.11.2024. The impugned order acknowledged an error apparent on the face of the record but proceeded to impose a penalty without discussing the petitioner's rectification application.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 07.02.2025 was unsustainable. While the order acknowledged an error apparent on the face of the record, it failed to provide any discussion or reasoning concerning the petitioner's application for rectification filed on 25.11.2024. The Court found that the second respondent had merely imposed a penalty without addressing the substance of the petitioner's application. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the case back to the respondents. The respondents are directed to pass a fresh order on the petitioner's application, dated 25.11.2024, filed under Section 161 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, after providing due notice to the petitioner. This exercise is to be completed within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The ratio decidendi is that an authority must provide reasoned consideration to rectification applications, especially when an error apparent is acknowledged.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 07.02.2025, passed by the second respondent under Section 161 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed for failing to address the petitioner's application for rectification of the order dated 29.10.2024. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the second respondent, despite acknowledging an error apparent on the face of the record, failed to provide any discussion or reasoning regarding the petitioner's application for rectification. The impugned order merely imposed a penalty without proper consideration of the petitioner's submissions. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents.