s.161 rectification request challenging earlier order: COVID limitation extension and missed hearings can't bar review, matter remanded

The dominant issue was whether a rectification application under s.161 was wrongly rejected on limitation and on alleged non-participation in earlier proceedings. The HC held that limitation stood saved by the SC's COVID-related extension orders; therefore, rejection on limitation could not be sustained, resulting in setting aside of the impugned order on this ground. On the scope of s.161, the HC held that its non obstante clause requires rectification to be considered independently "notwithstanding anything" in other provisions; hence prior show-cause notices or missed personal hearings could not justify rejection of the rectification request, leading to remand for fresh consideration.

---

---

Issues:
1. Limitation period for filing rectification application under Section 161 of the GST Act.
2. Rejection of rectification application based on limitation and merits.
3. Non-response to show cause notices as a ground for rejecting rectification application.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash an assessment order demanding payment of wrongly transitioned Input Tax Credit (ITC) into the GST regime. The petitioner argued that the rectification application filed on 03.11.2021 falls within the extended limitation period granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, starting from 15.03.2020 and ending on 02.10.2021. The court agreed that the limitation period was saved by the Supreme Court's orders, thus rejecting the respondent's contention regarding the limitation.

Issue 2:
The respondent had rejected the rectification application not only on grounds of limitation but also on merits, citing non-response to earlier notices as a reason. However, the court held that the language in Section 161 of the Act allows for independent consideration of rectification applications, irrespective of other provisions. The court emphasized that the rectification process should be based on the merits of the case and not influenced by previous notices or lack of response. Therefore, the rejection based on merits was deemed invalid, and the impugned order was set aside.

Issue 3:
The respondent contended that the rejection of the rectification application was also based on the petitioner's failure to respond to earlier notices. However, the court clarified that the rectification process should be treated independently, without being influenced by past notices. The court emphasized that the language in Section 161 of the Act allows for a separate consideration of rectification applications, disregarding previous non-responses to notices. Consequently, the court held that the rejection based on the petitioner's non-response to earlier notices was not a valid ground, and the impugned order was set aside.

In conclusion, the court set aside the impugned order, remitting the matter back to the respondent for reconsideration. The court directed the respondent to independently assess the rectification application, giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, and dispose of the application within six weeks. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

---