The Orissa High Court, in M/s. Asika Fintrade Pvt. Ltd., Barbil, Kendujhar v. Assistant Commissioner C.T. & G.S.T., Barbil Circle, Barbil, Keonjhar and Others, W.P.(C) No. 5276 of 2026, has set aside an order rejecting the taxpayer’s application for rectification under Section 161 of the GST Act and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The order was passed on 21 August 2026 by a Division Bench comprising Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Murahari Sri Raman.
Background of the Case
The proceedings originated from a show cause notice dated 22 December 2023 issued under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Pursuant to the notice, an order dated 29 April 2024 was passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax. The petitioner preferred an appeal against that order, but the appeal was rejected on 17 July 2025 on the ground of delay in approaching the appellate authority under Section 107 of the GST Act.
The petitioner had also filed an application for rectification on 14 May 2024 under Section 161 of the GST Act. According to the petitioner, it subsequently discovered from the certified order sheets that the rectification application had been rejected, but the rejection order had never been communicated to it. The departmental record also indicated that the rejection order could not be generated through the GST portal because of technical difficulties.
GST – Rectification Order and Procedural Fairness
A significant issue before the High Court was the discrepancy in the departmental record. While the order sheet recorded proceedings relating to rejection of the rectification application on 30 May 2024, the impugned rejection order produced before the Court bore the handwritten signature of the Assistant Commissioner dated 30 May 2025. The State’s Standing Counsel did not dispute the position emerging from the certified order sheets.
Considering these circumstances, the High Court held that the impugned rejection order could not be sustained. It accordingly quashed and set aside the order dated 30 May 2025 rejecting the petitioner’s rectification application under Section 161.
Fresh Consideration Under Section 161
The Court remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, CT & GST Circle, Barbil, directing the authority to dispose of the rectification application dated 14 May 2024 after considering the grounds raised by the petitioner and the supporting documents and records available on the portal or produced before the authority. The Court specifically noted that the petitioner had not been afforded adequate opportunity to present its case during the proceedings under Section 73.
The petitioner was directed to appear before the authority within 15 working days. The authority was required to consider the petitioner’s explanation and supporting material, pass an appropriate reasoned order in accordance with Section 161 and communicate the decision to the petitioner forthwith.
Key Legal Takeaway
The ruling highlights the importance of proper communication of orders passed under the GST law and adherence to procedural fairness. Where the record itself demonstrates inconsistencies concerning the date and communication of a rectification rejection order, and the taxpayer has not received an adequate opportunity to present its case, such an order may not withstand judicial scrutiny. The High Court therefore restored the rectification proceedings for a fresh, reasoned decision after granting the taxpayer an opportunity of hearing.