TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1100
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... penalty. The Respondent attributes this inconsistency to an incorrect selection while generating the order on the GST portal. By a corrigendum ['Corrigendum'] dated 28.05.2024, the Respondent clarified that the proceedings had been dropped on three issues and that the demand on the fourth survived. 3. The Petitioner contends that the digitally signed Portal Order must prevail over the unsigned Annexure and that the demand could not thereafter be sustained through a Corrigendum. The question is whether the Portal Order, despite expressly incorporating the Annexure, conclusively establishes that the proceedings stood dropped on all four issues. For the reasons that follow, it does not. 4. The SCN raised four issues concerning reconciliation of outward supplies reported in GSTR-9, differences between GSTR-1 and GSTR-9, eligibility of Input Tax Credit ('ITC') and ITC claimed in respect of suppliers whose registrations had been cancelled or who had defaulted in filing returns or paying tax. The Petitioner submitted its reply and furnished explanations on each issue. 5. The Portal Order is titled "Order for dropping the proceedings under section 73/74". Its operative portion st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tain a demand by saying that an incorrect option was selected on the GST portal. An adjudication order, it is argued, cannot be divided into parts so that the signed portal-generated document records closure while an unsigned annexure is relied upon to create a demand. 11. Learned counsel further submits that the Annexure containing the demand bears neither a physical nor a digital signature and cannot prevail over the digitally signed Portal Order. Reliance is placed upon Marg ERP Limited v. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Service Tax & Anr. (2023) 112 GSTR 153, in support of the submission that an unsigned adjudication order cannot be sustained. 12. Placing particular reliance upon Rule 142(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 ('CGST Rules'), counsel submits that no summary of the demand in FORM GST DRC-07 was issued or made available on the portal. According to the Petitioner, a demand cannot be enforced through an unsigned Annexure when the Portal Order records that the proceedings stand dropped and the prescribed statutory summary has not been made available. 13. The Petitioner also raises an objection concerning limitation. It is contended that the Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ollowed. Section 160, separately, saves proceedings from certain mistakes, defects or omissions where they are otherwise in substance and effect in conformity with the Act. It does not dispense with the requirements governing an exercise of power under Section 161 of the CGST Act. 19. The Rules also prescribe the procedure following rectification. Rule 142(7) of the CGST Rules requires a summary in FORM GST DRC-08 where an order is rectified under Section 161 or an order uploaded on the system is withdrawn. The description of the corrective instrument as a 'Corrigendum' is, therefore, not decisive. What matters is the nature of the correction and whether it satisfies the governing statutory requirements. 20. The starting point is the order dated 13.04.2024 itself. The Petitioner is correct that an adjudication order cannot be divided into disconnected parts. But that principle also prevents the Portal Order from being read in isolation from the Annexure to which it expressly refers. The document records that the proceedings are dropped "for the reasons and other details stated in the Annexure attached herewith". 21. The Annexure is inconsistent with an unconditional droppi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....error is apparent from the order itself. Its incorporated Annexure expressly rejects the Petitioner's case on the fourth issue and quantifies the resulting demand, while the Portal Order records that the proceedings stand dropped. The two cannot be reconciled. Read as a whole, the composite order dated 13.04.2024 shows that the fourth issue was decided against the Petitioner. The Respondent's explanation that the contradiction resulted from an incorrect portal selection is accepted as the error is apparent on the face of the order. Correcting that recital requires no reconsideration of the evidence or of the Petitioner's entitlement to ITC. 27. The Corrigendum does exactly that. It preserves the relief on the first three issues and repeats the findings and amounts already recorded on the fourth. It neither supplements the reasons for disallowance nor enlarges the demand. The correction therefore makes the Portal Order conform to the determination issued on 13.04.2024 and falls within Section 161. This conclusion follows from the original order and the Corrigendum. It does not depend upon the contents of the unproduced departmental note or GSTN communication. 28. The record do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cided on 20.08.2025, this Court held that FORM GST DRC-07 is a summary of the adjudication order and its subsequent uploading does not render an otherwise timely issued order barred by limitation. It was also observed that DRC-07 ought to accompany the order or be uploaded within a reasonable time, since without it no Appeal can be filed and no demand can be enforced. 32. In the present case, the Annexure itself states that the demand was created in FORM GST DRC-07. The Petitioner asserts that no such form was issued or made available on the portal. The material before this Court does not establish the present portal position. No conclusive finding on that factual aspect is therefore required. The conclusion concerning the validity of the Corrigendum does not dispense with compliance with Rule 142. The prescribed statutory summaries must, if not already available, be uploaded and made available in terms of the directions which follow. 33. The objections concerning authentication and the Corrigendum have thus been determined in the present proceedings. The Corrigendum is sustained as a rectification under Section 161 of the inconsistent recital in the Portal Order. What remain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e requisite statutory pre-deposit, the Appeal shall be entertained and decided on merits without being rejected on the ground of limitation. 39. Subject to the findings returned in this order, the Appellate Authority shall independently consider the merits of the disputed demand and any surviving objection concerning limitation which falls within its jurisdiction, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. In considering any such limitation plea, the Appellate Authority shall apply the statutory framework and the binding judicial decisions governing the proceedings. Nothing in this order shall be understood as remitting to the Appellate Authority any challenge to the validity of Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax. 40. The directions for certification and uploading are intended to facilitate the statutory Appeal and do not authorise a fresh assessment. The findings concerning authentication and rectification shall govern the Appeal. The merits of the demand and any surviving question of limitation remain open only to the extent indicated in paragraph 39 above. 41. Recovery of the disputed demand shall remain in abeyance until expiry of the period afforde....