HC directs Department to consider matter afresh where reply filed by the Taxpayer through email has not been considered and opportunity of personal hearing not granted

The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Shree Balaji Enterprises Versus Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissionerate - 2025 (7) TMI 390 - MADRAS HIGH COURT held that rectification under GST can only be sought for an apparent error on the face of record and not for reassessment, however, the matter has been remanded for fresh adjudication due to violation of principles natural justice.

Facts:

Shree Balaji Enterprises ('the Petitioner') challenged the Order dated February 17, 2025 and the rejection order dated March 18, 2025, passed by the Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise ('the Respondent') under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“theCGST Act”). The Petitioner contended that in response to the show cause notice dated November 27, 2024, they had filed a reply via email instead of uploading it on the GST portal. The Respondent, treating it as non-compliance, passed the Order in Original without considering the reply filed by the Petitioner.

Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a rectification application, which was rejected on the ground that the error did not qualify as an “error apparent on the face of the record.” Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner has approached the Court for the present writ petition.

Issue:

Whether the assessment order passed without considering the reply of the Petitioner sent via email is valid?

Held:

The Hon’ble Madras High Court in M/s. Shree Balaji Enterprises Versus Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissionerate - 2025 (7) TMI 390 - MADRAS HIGH COURTheld as under:

• Observed that, the Petitioner had indeed submitted a reply to the SCN via email but not on the portal, and this reply was not considered during the assessment proceedings.
• Held that, such non-consideration of reply and not granting an opportunity of personal hearing violated the principles of natural justice.
• Clarified that, the scope of a rectification application is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record. Reconsideration of facts or documents omitted earlier due to procedural lapses cannot be addressed through a rectification petition.
• Directed that, the matter be remanded for fresh assessment after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner and due opportunity to file the reply either physically or through the portal and ordered that the Petitioner shall deposit 10% of the disputed tax amount before the matter is heard afresh.

 (Author can be reached at [email protected])