Petitioner allowed to file rectification application under Section 161 CGST Act after TDS uploading error

J&K & Ladakh HC disposed of petition challenging Adjudicating Authority's order dated 20th December 2023, which was rejected as time-barred. Court noted prima facie mistake by Executive Engineer in uploading TDS against petitioner's PAN, evidenced by certificate dated 26th July 2024. HC permitted petitioner to file rectification application under Section 161 of CGST Act 2017 before Adjudicating Authority within two weeks, allowing opportunity to present material evidence for potential rectification of original order.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal rejection on the ground of limitation.
2. Error in the Order of Adjudicating Authority.
3. Seeking rectification of the Order.
4. Permission to file a rectification application.
5. Condonation of delay in filing rectification application.
6. Stay on coercive measures for recovery of demand.

Analysis:

1. The Petitioner filed a Petition under Article 226 challenging the rejection of an appeal by the Appellate Authority on grounds of limitation. The appeal was against an Order dated December 20, 2023, by the Adjudicating Authority. The Petitioner argued that the Adjudicating Authority's Order contained an error due to wrong TDS entries made by the Executive Engineer. The Petitioner contended that failure to rectify this mistake would cause financial harm. The Court noted the need for rectification and granted the Petitioner an opportunity to file a rectification application under Section 161 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

2. The Court observed that the Petitioner's case involved seeking rectification of the Adjudicating Authority's Order based on evidence provided by the Executive Engineer's certificate. The Court acknowledged the possibility of rectification but emphasized the importance of presenting the certificate and relevant records before the Adjudicating Authority. The Court directed the Petitioner to file a rectification application within two weeks, condoning the delay due to pursuing the appeal in good faith.

3. Despite not delving into all aspects of the case, the Court deemed it just to allow the Petitioner to seek rectification. The Court highlighted the necessity of filing the rectification application within six months but granted an extension due to the Petitioner's genuine pursuit of legal remedies. The Court instructed that no coercive measures for demand recovery should be taken against the Petitioner until the rectification application is decided. However, if the Petitioner fails to file the application within the specified timeframe, the Respondents are permitted to proceed with recovery measures in accordance with the law.

4. The Court concluded the judgment by disposing of the Writ Petition, along with the connected CM, with the directions provided regarding the rectification application and the stay on coercive measures.

---