TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>GST rejection order quashed for error on record, no second proceedings allowed for same issues</h1> <h3>M/s. JR Enterprises, Represented by its Proprietor P. Janakiraman Versus The State Tax Officer, The Deputy Commissioner, GST Appeal, Tirunelveli.</h3> 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 ... Rejection order - error apparent on the face of record - Section 161 of the respective GST Act - HELD THAT:- There is no scope for initiation of second proceedings in respect of the issue, which is already covered by order, which was passed earlier. If there is an error apparent on face of record, it is for the department for correcting the same by passing an order under 161 of TNGST Act. Instead, the petitioner has been subjected to fresh proceedings in GST DRC 01, dated 25.11.2024 which has culminated in impugned order in Form GST DRC 07, dated 13.02.2025, in respect of which, summary of the order was issued on 14.02.2025 and it has been wrongly rejected by the order, dated 29.04.2025. In event, powers of the Appellate Commissioner under GST Act are wide enough to deal with the situation. Therefore, this Court suo-motu impleads the Deputy Commissioner, GST Appeal, Tirunelveli as second respondent in this Writ Petition. Therefore, while quashing the impugned order, liberty is given to the second respondent to pass appropriate order to incorporate the proposed demand in the impugned order after hearing the petitioner. Petition disposed off. 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
