The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s Shree Balaji Enterprises v. Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise [W.P. No. 16008 of 2025 & W.M.P. Nos. 18111 & 18114 of 2025, dated June 02, 2025] held that rectification under GST can only be sought for an apparent error on the face of record and not for reassessment, however, the matter has been remanded for fresh adjudication due to violation of principles natural justice.
Facts:
Shree Balaji Enterprises (“the Petitioner”) challenged the Order dated February 17, 2025 and the rejection order dated March 18, 2025, passed by the Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (“the Respondent”) under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”). The Petitioner contended that in response to the show cause notice dated November 27, 2024, they had filed a reply via email instead of uploading it on the GST portal. The Respondent, treating it as non-compliance, passed the Order in Original without considering the reply filed by the Petitioner.
Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a rectification application, which was rejected on the ground that the error did not qualify as an “error apparent on the face of the record.” Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner has approached the Court for the present writ petition.
Issue:
Whether the assessment order passed without considering the reply of the Petitioner sent via email is valid?
Held:
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in W.P. No. 16008 of 2025 held as under:
- Observed that, the Petitioner had indeed submitted a reply to the SCN via email but not on the portal, and this reply was not considered during the assessment proceedings.
- Held that, such non-consideration of reply and not granting an opportunity of personal hearing violated the principles of natural justice.
- Clarified that, the scope of a rectification application is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record. Reconsideration of facts or documents omitted earlier due to procedural lapses cannot be addressed through a rectification petition.
- Directed that, the matter be remanded for fresh assessment after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner and due opportunity to file the reply either physically or through the portal and ordered that the Petitioner shall deposit 10% of the disputed tax amount before the matter is heard afresh.
CLICK HERE FOR OFFICIAL JUDGMENT COPY
(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
