Nand Kishore Garg vs. Assistant Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, Nand Kishore Garg, filed an application for rectification of an Order-in-Original dated 29.08.2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division, Rudrapur. This application was submitted on 17.01.2025, which the petitioner claims was within the time prescribed by Notification No. 22/2024-CT dated 08.10.2024. As no decision was taken, the petitioner filed a previous writ petition, which was disposed of on 05.05.2026 with a direction to decide the rectification application within eight weeks. Subsequently, the rectification application was rejected by an order dated 30.06.2026.

Held

The Court found substance in the petitioner's submission. It held that the competent authority could not refuse to decide the rectification application on merits merely because more than three months had elapsed after its filing, provided the application was made within the prescribed time. The Court interpreted Clause 4 of Notification dated 08.10.2024 to mean that the three-month timeline is directory, indicating an endeavor to decide within that period, but not divesting the authority of its power to decide on merits if the period expires. The Court reasoned that the authority does not become functus officio upon the expiry of three months. Consequently, the impugned order dated 30.06.2026 was quashed and set aside. The matter was remitted back to the Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division, Rudrapur, to decide the petitioner's rectification application on merits within three months.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rectification application filed by the petitioner could be rejected solely on the ground that more than three months had elapsed since its filing, despite the application being filed within the prescribed time limit under Notification No. 22/2024-CT dated 08.10.2024? (Question of law). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that Clause 4 of Notification dated 08.10.2024 uses the phrase "as far as possible within three months," indicating a directory rather than mandatory timeline. Therefore, the lapse of three months should not preclude the authority from deciding the application on merits. The petitioner also contended that the rejection order contradicts the previous order of the High Court directing a decision on merits. Respondent's contention: The respondent authority, in its order dated 30.06.2026, relied on Section 161 of the CGST Act, 2017, and the timeline prescribed by Notification No. 22/2024-CT dated 08.10.2024, to hold that the rectification application was time-barred. The authority noted that it had joined on 26.05.2025, after the time for passing the rectification order had lapsed, and that the application was not reflecting on the portal.