Challenges with GST Section 161 Rectification

•

Rectification under section 161 has turned into a challenge instead of a solution..! This statement is based on personal experiences with the GST Department who are not willing to pass the Rectification Order timely, and therefore, we are running short of time Relevant Caselaws

1. Bombay High Court 1.1 Anvita Associates (2024) Where assessee had inadvertently not disclosed certain sales invoices in Form GSTR-1 and hence said invoices were not reflected in Form GSTR-2A of its customer;

assessee was to be directed to file an application for rectification of Form GSTR-1 for the period in question before the concerned GST Authorities, who were to decide the same in accordance with the law.

2. Madras High Court 2.1 Kondamma Trading (2023) Department rejected the request of Assessee to rectify GSTR-3B for shifting ITC from one head to another. ARR.

High Court held that rights were available to assessee to correct mistake by filing a rectification application under section 161; assessee should file rectification application.

2.2 M. Venkataraj (2023) When the assessee filed a rectification application disputing the assessment order by the revenue authority, claiming tax liability based on seigniorage fee details, the revenue authority was instructed to process the rectification application.

2.3 Vaishnavi Metals (2023) Where pursuant to impugned order passed, petitioner filed applications for rectification, pending rectification proceedings recovery would be kept in abeyance. ARR

2.4 Vadivel Pyro Works (2023) Before passing rectification order, revenue authority should have granted personal hearing to petitioner; where same was not done while passing rectification order, there was violation of principles of natural justice.

2.5 Pinstar Automotive India (P.) Ltd. (2023) ARR: Order passed on Rectification application without hearing assessee, being in violation of principles of natural justice and provisions of third proviso to section 161 of CGST Act, 2017, was not sustainable.

3. Andhra Pradesh High Court 3.1 Spy Agro Industries Ltd. (2022) Penalty imposed through rectification order being an additional liability, such order passed without providing opportunity of hearing was not sustainable. Hope you find this useful. Abhishek Raja Ram 9810638155