2025 (7) TMI 1443 - HC - GST

Petition dismissed for challenging rectification rejection under GST rules; errors must be apparent on record, not disputed facts.

Inventaa Associates Versus Commercial Tax Officer, Mettur Salem II

The HC dismissed the petition challenging the rejection of a rectification application. The petitioner failed to respond to a show cause notice, leading ... Rejction of rectification application - error apparent on the face of record or not - mismatch in Form GSTR 3B filed by the petitioner - one of the supplier has failed to file their Form GSTR-01 - HELD THAT:- In the case on hand, initially, a show cause notice was issued by the respondent on 31.05.2024. However, no reply was filed by the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the assessment order came to be passed by the respondent. Aggrieved over the said order, a rectification application was filed by the petitioner, however, the same was rejected by the respondent vide impugned order dated 04.04.2025. As rightly, contended by the respondent, a rectification application will be considered only if there is any error apparent on the original order. However, in this case, no such error has been apparent in the original order. The factual issues, which were raised by the petitioner, have to be looked out by the Assessing Officer only while passing the assessment order and the same cannot be considered in a rectification application. In such view of the matter, it is clear that the respondent had rightly passed the impugned order and the said order does not need any interference of this Court. Therefore, this Court is inclined to dismiss the present petition. Petition dismissed. The Madras High Court, through Hon'ble Mr. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, dismissed the writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the respondent. The petitioner contended that a supplier's failure to file Form GSTR-01 caused a mismatch in the petitioner's Form GSTR 3B, which was not considered before passing the assessment order. The petitioner's subsequent rectification application was rejected. The respondent argued that a show cause notice was issued due to the mismatch, but the petitioner failed to reply, leading to the assessment order. The rectification application was dismissed because 'a rectification application will be considered only if there is any error apparent on the original order,' which was not the case here. The Court held that factual disputes must be addressed by the Assessing Officer during the assessment and cannot be entertained in a rectification application. Since no 'error apparent on the face of the record' existed, the impugned order was valid. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed with no costs.