TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
One of the sections under the CGST Act which many taxpayers do not even take the advantages arising out of that section is Section 161. In simplest terms, any order passed by any authority (I refer here to OIO as well as OIA) has to be seen thoroughly immediately on the receipt of the order so as to ensure that the order is correct one in all respects. Many a times the authorities commit errors which may be easily detected in case that order is read in full at least two times as to whether the section references are right, whether the tax, interest as well as penalty imposed are in line with legal provisions and correct in all aspects. In case any error is detected which is apparent on the face of the order itself, the taxpayer may immediately apply for required rectification to the authority who passed the order which requires rectification. The maximum time available for seeking such rectification is three months from the date of the order. The authority can pass the order by accepting the rectification application or by rejecting the application, within a period of six months from the date of the order sought to be rectified.
This rectification, in applicable cases may do some wonders. In case the officer is convinced and passes by granting even partial relief as against the earlier order, the taxpayer gets fresh life of one month for first appeal and in case rectification done by first appellate authority, three months for second appeal from the date of the rectification order with due reduction in required pre deposit. Hence, all taxpayers from now onwards may thoroughly examine each and every OIO as well as OIA for any errors which is on the record. This application can help the taxpayers in a big way on limitation. This is explained in the following paragraphs.
This is a real case of one taxpayer the story of which is very interesting as well as an eye opener for all as concluded by the division bench of the Honorable Telangana High Court on 10/06/2026. The dispute related to the financial year 2019-20 for which the last date for passing OIO was 31/08/2024 under section 73. The jurisdictional assistant commissioner passed the OIO on 29/08/2024. The taxpayer preferred a rectification against the OIO on 22/11/2024 well with in the permitted time limit of three months from the date of OIO. The Assistant Commissioner was required to pass the rectification order within six months from the date of OIO which ended on 28/02/2025 itself. However, the rectification application was rejected only on 24/11/2025 by the Assistant Commissioner.
The taxpayer filed the first appeal before the Appellate Joint Commissioner on 19/02/2026 itself which is well within three months limit from rectification order. However, while filing the first appeal, the taxpayer appealed against the OIO dated 29/08/2024, though technically the taxpayer could have challenged the rectification order dated 24/11/2025. The appeal was rejected as usual on the grounds of limitation quoting that the appellate authority has no power to condone the delay. The division bench, on critical examination of the above facts expressed the view that the first appellate authority has erred in the decision of rejection of appeal and could have suggested the appellant to make necessary corrections in the appeal to make it an appeal against the rectification order. The operative portion reads as ' 7. In view of the same, we are of the considered opinion that the Appellate Commissioner ought not to have rejected the appeal on this hyper technical aspect of appeal being filed after about more than one and half years from the date original order was passed on 29.08.2024. At best, if at all, the Appellate Joint Commissioner was of the view that there was no challenge to the rejection order of the rectification application dated 24.11.2025, the petitioner would have been advised to amend the memo of appeal suitably, so as to make good the technicalities, so far as the limitation is concerned and also so far as challenge to the original order dated 29.08.2024 is concerned. Thus, we are of the view that the Appellate Joint Commissioner ought not to have taken more pragmatic approach in deciding the appeal, particularly, in the aforesaid given factual matrix'.
8. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to allow the writ petition by setting aside the order dated 20.04.2026 insofar as the appeal being dismissed on the ground of being barred by limitation. The matter stands remitted back to the Appellate Joint Commissioner to decide the appeal purely on its merits in accordance with law. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits.
The case as reported in M/s. One E Store Private Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes), Hyderabad - 2026 (6) TMI 999 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT in the matter of One E Store Private limited leaves all of us key take aways for the benefit of readers.
- Critically examine each and every OIO as well as OIA for the accuracy and correctness.
- Explore the possibilities of seeking rectification, in case it is a fit case.
- Breathing time is available to strengthen the appeal by adding all developments.
- Fresh time limit starts from the date of rectification order, even when the rectification is rejected.
- A careful reading of the respective OIO or OIA may leave scope for rectification by reading that order again.
One of the section which is a beneficial one for the taxpayer such as 75(4), 75(5), 75(7) is section 161 which may be played advantageously in all deserving cases.