GST rejection order quashed for error on record, no second proceedings allowed for same issues

The Madras HC quashed a GST rejection order dated 29.04.2025, finding error apparent on the face of record. The court held that no second proceedings could be initiated for issues already covered by earlier orders. If errors exist, the department must correct them under Section 161 of TNGST Act rather than subjecting the petitioner to fresh proceedings. The petitioner had been wrongly subjected to new proceedings in GST DRC 01 dated 25.11.2024, culminating in an impugned order in Form GST DRC 07 dated 13.02.2025. The court suo-motu impleaded the Deputy Commissioner, GST Appeal, Tirunelveli as second respondent, recognizing the Appellate Commissioner's wide powers under GST Act. While quashing the impugned order, the court granted liberty to the second respondent to pass appropriate orders incorporating the proposed demand after hearing the petitioner. The petition was disposed of.

---

---

Summary:The Madras High Court, through Justice C. Saravanan, disposed of a Writ Petition challenging the impugned order dated 14.02.2025 passed in GST DRC 07 and the subsequent rejection order dated 29.04.2025 under Section 161 of the Tamil Nadu GST Act, 2017. The rejection was based on the principle that an "error apparent on the face of the record" must be self-evident and not require "a long drawn process of reasoning," citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale (AIR 1960 SC 137).The Court noted that the petitioner had already faced adverse orders for the same tax period and that the issue was subject to appeal before the Appellate Commissioner. It held that there was "no scope for initiation of second proceedings" on an issue already adjudicated and emphasized that if an error is apparent, the department must correct it under Section 161.Suo-motu, the Court impleaded the Deputy Commissioner, GST Appeal, Tirunelveli as a party and quashed the impugned order. The Court granted liberty to the appellate authority to pass an appropriate consolidated order after hearing the petitioner, who is entitled to make submissions. The Writ Petition was disposed of with no costs.

---