https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419504 The dominant issue was whether a rectification application under s.161 was wrongly rejected on limitation and on alleged non-participation in earlier proceedings. The HC held that limitation stood saved by the SC's COVID-related extension orders; therefore, rejection on limitation could not be sustained, resulting in setting aside of the impugned order on this ground. On the scope of s.161, the HC held that its non obstante clause requires rectification to be considered independently "notwithstanding anything" in other provisions; hence prior show-cause notices or missed personal hearings could not justify rejection of the rectification request, leading to remand for fresh consideration. en-us Thu, 10 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Jan 2026 14:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419504 The dominant issue was whether a rectification application under s.161 was wrongly rejected on limitation and on alleged non-participation in earlier proceedings. The HC held that limitation stood saved by the SC's COVID-related extension orders; therefore, rejection on limitation could not be sustained, resulting in setting aside of the impugned order on this ground. On the scope of s.161, the HC held that its non obstante clause requires rectification to be considered independently "notwithstanding anything" in other provisions; hence prior show-cause notices or missed personal hearings could not justify rejection of the rectification request, leading to remand for fresh consideration. Case-Laws GST Thu, 10 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419504