Tvl. S.G. Fab vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.S.G.Fab, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 05.02.2026 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST). The petitioner sought to quash this order and direct the respondent to rectify an error in the summary Form GST DRC-08 dated 22.01.2025, specifically to correct the Financial/Assessment Year from 2017-2018 to 2019-2020. The petitioner had previously applied for rectification of a detailed order dated 19.08.2024. A rectification order dated 22.01.2025 was issued, acknowledging that the petitioner had availed eligible input tax credit. However, the accompanying summary rectification order directed payment, which prompted a further request for rectification. This subsequent request was rejected by the impugned order.

Held

The Court held that the summary rectification order dated 22.01.2025 was not in conformity with the detailed rectification order dated 22.01.2025. The detailed order had correctly recognized that the petitioner had availed input tax credit on inward supplies as per GSTR-2A. However, the summary rectification order failed to reflect this, erroneously directing the petitioner to make a payment. The Court found that the respondent's rejection of the petitioner's subsequent rectification request, stating there was no error apparent on the face of the record, could not be countenanced given the clear discrepancy. The reasoning was that the inconsistency between the detailed and summary rectification orders constituted a manifest error. The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the respondent for reconsideration. The respondent was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and issue a fresh order within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The ratio decidendi is that a summary order must accurately reflect the findings of a detailed order, and any such inconsistency constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record, warranting rectification.

Key Issues

1. Whether the summary rectification order dated 22.01.2025, which directed the petitioner to make payment despite the detailed rectification order recognizing the petitioner's availed input tax credit, is erroneous and requires rectification, turning on the interpretation of the respondent's power to rectify errors under the GST law. Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the summary rectification order was inconsistent with the detailed rectification order. The detailed order had accepted the petitioner's claim of input tax credit on inward supplies as per GSTR-2A, but the summary order failed to reflect this, instead demanding payment. The petitioner contended that this inconsistency constituted an error apparent on the face of the record, necessitating further rectification. Respondent's contentions: The respondent, through the learned Government Advocate (Taxes), accepted notice. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the respondent against the petitioner's plea for rectification.