2025 (6) TMI 421 - HC - GST

Delhi HC sets aside rectification order for denying hearing opportunity, violating natural justice principles

Transzone Logistics India Pvt Ltd Versus Sales Tax Officer Avato & Ors.

The Delhi HC set aside a rectification application order after finding that the petitioner was denied a hearing opportunity, violating natural justice ... Rejection of rectification application without giving an opportunity of hearing to petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The challenge in this case is to the effect that in the rectification application filed by the Petitioner, no hearing was given to the Petitioner. This issue has been considered and decided by this Court in HVR Solar Private Limited vs. Sales Tax Officer Class II AVATO WARD 67 & Anr. [2025 (4) TMI 730 - DELHI HIGH COURT], where the Court has held that 'the personal hearing ought to have been afforded to the Petitioner, which has not been done. Accordingly, the order in rectification application dated 28th February, 2025 is set aside.' After hearing the Petitioner, the rectification application shall be decided in accordance with law - petition disposed off. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter are:Whether the rejection of the rectification application without affording a hearing to the Petitioner violates the proviso 3 to Section 161 of the DGST Act, 2017, which mandates adherence to the principles of natural justice where the rectification adversely affects any person.The scope and applicability of Section 161 of the DGST Act concerning rectification of errors apparent on the face of the record, particularly the procedural requirements when such rectification impacts the rights of the applicant adversely.The legal consequences of rejecting a rectification application without providing reasons or an opportunity of hearing, especially in light of precedents from the Delhi and Madras High Courts.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Whether the rejection of the rectification application without hearing violates principles of natural justice under proviso 3 to Section 161 of the DGST ActRelevant legal framework and precedents: Section 161 of the DGST Act, 2017 empowers the authority to rectify any error apparent on the face of the record within specified time limits. The third proviso to Section 161 states:'Provided also that where such rectification adversely affects any person, the principles of natural justice shall be followed by the authority carrying out such rectification.'This proviso mandates that if the rectification order is likely to adversely affect a person, the authority must follow principles of natural justice, which includes affording an opportunity of hearing.The Court relied heavily on a recent decision by the Madras High Court in Suriya Cement Agency v. State Tax Officer, where it was held that rejection of a rectification application without hearing or reasoned order violates Section 161's proviso. The Madras High Court emphasized that when a rectification application is rejected adversely affecting the applicant, the applicant must be given an opportunity to be heard. The absence of any reasoning or hearing renders the order liable to be set aside.The Delhi High Court's own prior decisions (e.g., in HVR Solar Private Limited and Sri Ganpati Enterprises) have consistently held that the third proviso to Section 161 imposes a mandatory procedural safeguard of hearing before adverse rectification orders are passed.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court interpreted the third proviso as a clear statutory mandate to ensure natural justice is observed in rectification proceedings that could negatively impact the applicant. The Court found that the impugned rectification order rejected the Petitioner's application without any hearing or consideration of the Petitioner's submissions, thereby violating this statutory requirement.Key evidence and findings: The impugned order dated 1st May 2025 rejected the Petitioner's rectification application summarily, without affording a hearing or providing reasons. The Petitioner contended that this was contrary to the proviso 3 to Section 161. The Respondent argued that the Petitioner had been given full opportunity in the main proceedings and that the rectification was dismissed as no error was found on the face of the record.Application of law to facts: The Court found that the absence of a hearing or any reasoned order in the rectification proceedings, which adversely affected the Petitioner, was a clear breach of the principles of natural justice as mandated by proviso 3 to Section 161. The fact that the Petitioner had opportunities in the main proceedings was not sufficient to dispense with the requirement of hearing in the rectification process, especially when the rectification order was adverse.Treatment of competing arguments: The Respondent's contention that no hearing was necessary because the rectification was dismissed on merits without error was rejected. The Court held that the statutory provision is explicit and mandatory in requiring a hearing when the rectification adversely affects the applicant, regardless of whether the main proceedings had earlier afforded opportunities.Conclusion: The rejection of the rectification application without hearing violated proviso 3 to Section 161. The impugned order was set aside, and the Petitioner was directed to be afforded a hearing before a fresh decision is taken.Issue 2: The procedural requirements and scope of Section 161 of the DGST Act regarding rectification of errors apparent on the face of the recordRelevant legal framework: Section 161 allows rectification of errors apparent on the face of the record within six months from the date of the order, with a three-month window for filing rectification applications. The section also carves out exceptions for clerical or arithmetical errors, which can be corrected beyond six months.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court reiterated that rectification under Section 161 is a limited remedy to correct errors apparent on the face of the record and is not a forum for re-agitating substantive issues. However, when the rectification adversely affects a person, the authority must follow the principles of natural justice, including hearing the affected party.Key findings: The Court noted that the impugned order lacked any explanation or reasoning as to why the rectification was rejected, which is inconsistent with the requirement to consider the rectification application on its merits.Application of law to facts: The Court applied the above principles and found that the authority failed to comply with the procedural safeguards mandated by Section 161, particularly the third proviso, when rejecting the Petitioner's rectification application.Treatment of competing arguments: The Respondent's argument that no error was apparent on the face of the record and hence no rectification was warranted was accepted in principle but rejected on the procedural ground that the Petitioner should have been heard before rejection.Conclusion: The authority must follow the procedural requirements of Section 161, including affording hearing where the rectification is adverse, and provide reasoned orders. The impugned order failed these requirements.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'Provided also that where such rectification adversely affects any person, the principles of natural justice shall be followed by the authority carrying out such rectification.''When an order is being made adverse to the assessee, then he should be given an opportunity of being heard when the rectification adversely affects any person. The principles of natural justice had been inbuilt by way of the 3rd Proviso to Section 161.''If pursuant to a Rectification Application, if a rectification is made and if it adversely affects the assessee, Proviso 3 contemplates an opportunity of hearing to be given.''When a Rectification Application is made at the instance of assessee and the rectification is being sought to be rejected without considering the reasons for rectification or by giving reasons as to why such rectification could not be entertained, it is also imperative that the assessee be put on notice.'The Court conclusively held that the impugned rectification order rejecting the Petitioner's application without affording a hearing or providing reasons was contrary to the provisions of Section 161 of the DGST Act. The order was set aside, and the Petitioner was directed to be given a hearing and the rectification application to be decided afresh in accordance with law.