2025 (5) TMI 1887 - HC - GST

Challenge to the order passed in the Rectification Application - apparent error on the record or not - opportunity of hearing provided or not - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - It is an admitted fact that the petitioner had made a Rectification Application. The order of rectification which is impugned would indicate that for the reasons given in the annexure to the said order the Rectification Application is rejected - A perusal of the order does not also indicate that there had been no error apparent on the record to reject the rectification. There is also no reasonings as to why there is no error apparent on the face of the record. For this reason the impugned order dated 28.03.2025 is liable to be set aside. The Proviso indicates that when an order is being made adverse to the assessee then he should be given an opportunity of being heard when the rectification adversely affects any person. The principles of natural justice had been in-built by way of the 3rd Proviso to Section 161. If pursuant to a Rectification Application if a rectification is made and if it adversely affects the assessee 3rd Proviso contemplates an opportunity of hearing to be given. However when a Rectification Application is made at the instance of assessee and the rectification is being sought to be rejected without considering the reasons for rectification or by giving reasons as to why such rectification could not be entertained it is also imperative that the assessee should be put on notice. The order of rectification passed by the respondent dated 28.03.2025 is contrary to the provisions of Section 161 and in that aspect the same alone is set aside. The Rectification Application filed by the petitioner shall be taken afresh by the respondent and after giving an opportunity to the petitioner the respondent shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The petition is allowed.

Summary

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

• Whether the order rejecting the Rectification Application under Section 161 of the CGST Act can be passed without assigning reasons.
• Whether the Assessing Authority is required to provide an opportunity of hearing before rejecting a Rectification Application filed by the assessee.
• The scope and applicability of the proviso to Section 161 of the CGST Act concerning natural justice principles and opportunity of hearing in rectification proceedings.
• Whether the impugned order rejecting the Rectification Application suffers from any legal infirmity warranting interference by the Court.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

1. Requirement of Reasons for Rejecting Rectification Application

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 161 of the CGST Act empowers the authority to rectify any mistake apparent from the record. The statute does not explicitly mandate that reasons must be given when rejecting a rectification application. However, principles of administrative law and natural justice require that orders adversely affecting a party should be reasoned.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the impugned order rejecting the Rectification Application did not assign any reasons explaining why there was no apparent error on the record. The Court emphasized that the absence of any reasoning renders the order legally vulnerable. The Court held that rejection of rectification without stating reasons is not permissible.

Key Evidence and Findings: The order of rectification dated 28.03.2025 was silent on the rationale for rejecting the application. The petitioner had filed the rectification within time, but the authority rejected it summarily.

Application of Law to Facts: Since the order lacked any reasoning, the Court found it contrary to the statutory mandate and principles of natural justice, thereby warranting setting aside.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondent contended that reasons need not be assigned for rejection. The Court disagreed, underscoring the necessity of reasoned orders.

Conclusion: The Court held that the order rejecting the Rectification Application without reasons was liable to be set aside.

2. Requirement of Opportunity of Hearing Before Rejecting Rectification Application

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The third proviso to Section 161 of the CGST Act mandates that if the rectification order is detrimental to the interest of the assessee, the authority must provide an opportunity of hearing. The proviso is designed to embed the principles of natural justice in rectification proceedings.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The respondent argued that the proviso applies only when the authority initiates rectification suo motu and that no hearing is necessary when the assessee files the rectification application. The Court rejected this narrow interpretation, holding that even when the rectification application is filed by the assessee, if the authority proposes to reject it, thereby adversely affecting the assessee, the principles of natural justice require that the assessee be given an opportunity to be heard.

Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner's rectification application was rejected without any hearing or notice, which the Court found contrary to the statutory proviso.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the proviso to Section 161 strictly, concluding that the assessee must be put on notice and heard before rejection of the rectification application.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court did not accept the respondent's contention that no hearing is required when the application is filed by the assessee. It emphasized that natural justice principles are not excluded in such cases.

Conclusion: The Court held that the Assessing Authority must provide an opportunity of hearing before rejecting a Rectification Application filed by the assessee.

3. Validity of the Impugned Order Rejecting Rectification Application

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 161 CGST Act and the proviso thereto, along with principles of natural justice and administrative law.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court found the impugned order defective on two grounds: lack of reasons and absence of opportunity of hearing. Both these procedural lapses rendered the order contrary to law.

Key Evidence and Findings: The order dated 28.03.2025 rejected the Rectification Application without assigning reasons and without affording hearing.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the legal provisions and natural justice principles strictly, leading to the conclusion that the order was unlawful.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court considered and rejected the respondent's arguments supporting the impugned order.

Conclusion: The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the authority to reconsider the Rectification Application afresh, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

Significant Holdings

"The order of rectification passed by the respondent dated 28.03.2025 is contrary to the provisions of Section 161 and in that aspect, the same alone is set aside."

"The Proviso indicates that when an order is being made adverse to the assessee, then he should be given an opportunity of being heard when the rectification adversely affects any person."

"If pursuant to a Rectification Application, if a rectification is made and if it adversely affects the assessee, 3rd Proviso contemplates an opportunity of hearing to be given."

"When a Rectification Application is made at the instance of assessee and the rectification is being sought to be rejected without considering the reasons for rectification or by giving reasons as to why such rectification could not be entertained, it is also imperative that the assessee should be put on notice."

The Court established the core principles that:

• Orders rejecting Rectification Applications must be reasoned and not passed arbitrarily.
• The proviso to Section 161 mandates opportunity of hearing before passing any order adverse to the assessee in rectification proceedings.
• Natural justice principles apply irrespective of whether the rectification is initiated suo motu by the authority or on an application filed by the assessee.
• Failure to comply with these procedural safeguards renders the order liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order rejecting the Rectification Application and directed the authority to reconsider the application afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner was also given liberty to pursue further remedies available under law in respect of any subsequent order passed.