Mahesh Kumar Goyal vs. The Assistant Commissioner

Original PDF →

WPMB/876/2025HC UttarakhandGSTCNR UKHC01016292202509 April 2026Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, Mahesh Kumar Goyal, is challenging an order dated 07.11.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner SGST under Section 73 of the CGST Act. This order raised a demand of Rs. 1,26,773.59 for the period July 2017 to March 2018 due to a mismatch in Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed by the petitioner. Subsequently, on 24.06.2025, the petitioner filed an application for rectification of this order, availing a special procedure notified under Section 148 of the CGST Act via Notification No. 22/2024 dated 08.10.2024. The respondent rejected this application on 04.07.2025, stating there was no apparent error on the face of the record, and referencing Section 161 of the Act.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's application for rectification was wrongly treated as one under Section 161 of the CGST Act. The Court found that the application was indeed filed under the special rectification scheme notified vide Notification No. 22/2024 dated 08.10.2024, which was issued under Section 148 of the CGST Act. The Court noted that the Department of Revenue's clarifications dated 15.10.2024 also referred to this notification as a special scheme under Section 148. The Court reasoned that since this scheme provided a window for defaulting assessees to seek rectification, rejecting the application on the grounds applicable to Section 161 was manifestly illegal. The Court set aside the order rejecting the rectification application and directed the first respondent to reconsider the petitioner's application dated 24.06.2025 in accordance with Notification dated 08.10.2024 within six weeks. The original adjudication order dated 07.11.2023 would abide by the decision on the rectification application. The ratio decidendi is that special rectification schemes notified under Section 148 of the CGST Act must be considered on their own merits, distinct from the general provisions for rectification under Section 161.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's application for rectification, filed under the special procedure notified vide Notification No. 22/2024 dated 08.10.2024 under Section 148 of the CGST Act, was wrongly treated as an application under Section 161 of the CGST Act. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that their application was filed under a special rectification scheme, not under Section 161. They contended that under this scheme, irrespective of whether there was an error apparent on the face of the adjudication order, a person is entitled to its benefit if no appeal has been filed. They relied on Notification No. 22/2024 dated 08.10.2024 and clarifications issued by the Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs dated 15.10.2024. Revenue's contention: The respondents did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. However, their action of rejecting the application under Section 161 implies they considered it to be governed by that provision, which requires an error apparent on the face of the record.

Sections Cited

Section 73, Section 148, Section 161

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

2026:UHC:2603-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 876 OF 2025 9TH APRIL, 2026 Mahesh Kumar Goyal …… Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner SGST and another …… Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Dr. Govind Singh Latwal, learned counsel Counsel for the respondents : Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder for the State through video conferencing The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT: (per Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)

Heard Dr. Govind Singh Latwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder for the State. 2)

The first respondent passed an order dated 07.11.2023 in exercise of power under Section 73 of CGST Act raising a demand of Rs.1,26,773.59 for the period July 2017 to 1

2026:UHC:2603-DB March 2018 on ground of mismatch of certain ITC availed by the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application on 24.06.2025 for rectification of the order under special procedure for rectification notified under Section 148 of the CGST Act, 2017. The application has been rejected on 04.07.2025 for the reason that there does not appear any error apparent on the face of record to carry out rectification. A specific reference has been made to Section 161 of the Act in considering the application of the petitioner. 3)

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the application filed by the petitioner has been wrongly treated to be that under Section 161. It is urged that the application was filed availing the benefit of a special rectification scheme notified vide Notification No. 22/2024 dated 08.10.2024 under Section 148 of the Act. He submits that thereunder irrespective of whether there was any error in the adjudication order, in case no appeal has been filed by the person concerned, he is entitled to avail the benefit of the scheme. 4)

We have perused the clarifications issued by the Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India dated 15.10.2024, and it specifically refers to the Notification dated 08.10.2024, and that the same was in nature of a special scheme under Section 148 of the Act. 2

2026:UHC:2603-DB 5)

As thereby a window has been provided to the defaulting assessees to seek rectification under the drive, therefore, the rejection of the application on the ground that it does not fall under Section 161 is manifestly illegal. The application should have been considered in accordance with the object of the Special Rectification Drive and keeping in mind the provisions of Section 148 of the Act. 6)

That having not been done, the order rejecting the rectification application is hereby set aside. The first respondent is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner dated 24.06.2025 as per the Notification dated 08.10.2024 within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of the instant order. The order dated 07.11.2023 will abide by the decision that would be taken by respondent No. 1 on the rectification application of the petitioner. 7)

The writ petition stands ordered accordingly. 8)

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

_______________________

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.

_________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.

Dt: 9TH APRIL, 2026 Negi

Reproduced from the public record of the Uttarakhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.