2025 (6) TMI 1251

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....E RESPONDENT : SHRI.ARUN AJAY SANKAR, G.P JUDGMENT The petitioner is a private limited company having registration under the provisions of the Central Goods and Service Tax, Act, 2017/Kerala State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The grievance of the petitioner is against Ext.P14 order, by which the rectification sought by the petitioner, in respect of Ext.P8 order, was rejected on the reason that that petitioner failed to submit the rectification application within the statutory period of six months as contemplated under Section 161 of the GST Act. The facts which lead to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: Earlier, highlighting certain discrepancies in the assessment pertaining to the financial year 2017-2018, a show....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ths as contemplated under Section 161 of the GST Act, no interference could be made. It was in these circumstances, this writ petition was submitted, challenging Ext.P8 and P14 orders. 2. I have heard Sri. K.S Hariharan Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Arun Ajay Sankar, the learned Government Pleader for the State. 3. As mentioned above, the main challenge is against Ext.P14, which is an order rejecting the request placed by the petitioner, highlighting the duplication of the orders as evidenced by Exts.P7 and P8. As far as the conflicting orders, namely Exts.P7 and P8 are concerned, there is no dispute that the points highlighted in the respective show cause notices which culminated in those orders were the sam....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....an suo motu initiate the proceeding of rectification as well. 5. In this case, as mentioned above, since there is admittedly a duplication of the orders based on two proceedings initiated alleging the same irregularities, there was an error apparent on the face of the records as far as Ext.P8 order is concerned. Therefore, it is a matter which ought to have been rectified as it results in two mutually conflicting orders passed on the same issue by the Officers of the same Department. Ext.P7 being the first order passed, by the officer concerned accepting the explanation offered by the petitioner, the second order namely Ext.P8, which is contrary to the finding in Ext.P7, could not have been passed. Therefore, when such a serious error wa....