Birendra Pal Singh vs. Assistant Commissioner
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Birendra Pal Singh, filed a writ petition challenging a tax demand for the financial year 2020-21, specifically for June 2020. The Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Uttarkashi, had assessed CGST and SGST at Rs. 59,310/- each on an amount of Rs. 6,59,000/- received from a Government Department. The petitioner contended that an arithmetical miscalculation, specifically the addition of a numerical figure, resulted in a tax demand exceeding the taxable value of his turnover. A recovery certificate was issued pursuant to an order dated 23.12.2024. The petitioner submitted a letter dated 17.04.2025 from the Additional General Manager of the respondent Department, which he claimed admitted the arithmetical mistake.
Held
The Court held that the error pointed out by the petitioner was a mere arithmetical error. It found that the provisions of Section 161 of the Act could be invoked by the petitioner. Specifically, the Court referred to the second proviso to Section 161, which states that the six-month period for rectification shall not apply in cases where the rectification is purely in the nature of correction of a clerical or arithmetical error, arising from any accidental slip or omission. The Court concluded that the petitioner's case squarely fell within the ambit of this second proviso. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed in part. The petitioner was granted liberty to prefer an Application under the second proviso to Section 161 of the Act. If such an application is made, it shall be considered without reference to the limitation imposed by the first proviso and shall be decided on merits by the Assessing Officer. The Court also directed that no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner until the disposal of his application, provided the application is made within two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. The Court expressly left undecided any issue beyond the rectification of the arithmetical error.
Key Issues
1. Whether the tax demand raised against the petitioner is correct, considering the petitioner's claim of an arithmetical miscalculation leading to an inflated tax demand? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on the accuracy of tax computation and the applicability of rectification provisions). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that an arithmetical miscalculation, specifically the addition of an extra numerical figure, resulted in an incorrect tax demand that was higher than the actual taxable value of his transactions. He relied on a letter from the respondent Department admitting this arithmetical mistake. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents, through their learned counsel, fairly submitted that if there was a miscalculation or an arithmetical error due to the introduction of an additional numerical figure, the Department was open to considering the same and was amenable to the matter being remitted back for reconsideration.
Sections Cited
Section 161
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT : (per Sri G. Narendar, C.J.)
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
The issue, in a nutshell, that arises for determination in the instant writ petition is, whether the amount levied as tax due is correct or not?
The case of the petitioner is that, on account of an addition of a numerical figure, the same has resulted in an arithmetical miscalculation and it has resulted in a situation, where the tax demand is more than the taxable value of the turnover / transactions undertaken by the petitioner.
2025:UHC:6125-DB 2
A perusal of the show cause notice (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) shows that for Financial Year 2020-21, for the period of June 2020, Rs. 6,59,000/- has been considered as the amount received by the petitioner from the Government Department, and Rs. 59,310/- and Rs. 59,310/- have been assessed as CGST and SGST respectively and, thereafter, interest was also directed to be computed on the same. Pursuant to the order dated 23.12.2024, a recovery certificate was issued against the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the letter dated 17.04.2025 of the Additional General Manager of the respondent Department (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition), which is addressed to the petitioner also, the aforesaid arithmetical mistake has been admitted.
The submission of the learned counsel is placed on record.
Learned counsel for the respondents would fairly submit that, in the event, there being a miscalculation or an arithmetical error on account of introduction of an additional numerical figure, the Department is always open for consideration of the same and the matter may be remitted back.
2025:UHC:6125-DB 3
Having heard the counsels, we are of the opinion that the error being pointed out by the petitioner, being mere arithmetical error, the provisions of Section 161 of the Act can be invoked by the petitioner. That apart, the second proviso to Section 161 of the Act reads as under:-
“Provided further that the said period of six months shall not apply in such cases where the rectification is purely in the nature of correction of a clerical or arithmetical error, arising from any accidental slip or omission.”
The case canvassed by the petitioner falls squarely within the ambit of the second proviso.
In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed in part. The petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to prefer an Application under the second proviso to Section 161 of the Act and, if such an Application is made, the same shall be considered without reference to the limitation imposed under the first proviso and the same shall be considered and disposed of on merits by the A.O. Till such disposal of the Application preferred by the petitioner under Section 161 of the Act, there shall be no coercive action, subject to the condition that the Application, invoking the provision of Section 161 of the act, shall be made within two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
2025:UHC:6125-DB 4
The petition stands ordered accordingly.
There shall be no order as to costs.
_______________ G. NARENDAR, C.J.
_____________ ALOK MAHRA, J.
Dt: 15th July, 2025 Rathour
PRAVIND RA SINGH RATHOUR RATHOUR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=23699ccc2fd40ad81b6fd13323779d9 e3aeb1097d17dbb53d481cabd25946eed, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=1F65499E931DF71CDAF92A40C C6179B8E010331BA695239171F906FD5C45C4 E8, cn=PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR Date: 2025.07.24 11:49:56 +05'30'
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.