2025 (7) TMI 1067 - HC - GST

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

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.