Case Title: M/s Kanha Ji Industries v. State of Haryana & Others
Court: High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Petition No.: CWP No. 32712 of 2024 (O&M)
Date of Judgment: 04.12.2024
Category: Rectification of order / Input Tax Credit – GST Dispute
Relevant Section: Section 161 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Facts (Paras 1–5)
The petitioner, M/s Kanha Ji Industries, challenged an order-in-original dated 26.03.2024 passed by the CGST authorities. The firm had voluntarily paid ₹13,09,998/- through Form DRC-03, but the payment was not reflected in the said order. Claiming this as an error apparent on record, the petitioner filed a rectification application on 10.04.2024 under Section 161 of the CGST Act, 2017. However, the Additional Commissioner, CGST, Panchkula, vide order dated 15/17.05.2024, rejected the rectification request, advising the petitioner to file an appeal instead. The rejection was made without dealing with the specific contentions raised in the rectification plea.
Questions before the Court (Paras 5–6)
Whether the tax authority was justified in rejecting the rectification application without examining the merits of voluntary payment already made through DRC-03, and whether the rectification petition deserved reconsideration under Section 161.
Court’s Observations (Paras 6–7)
The Court noted that the respondents themselves conceded that the rectification application could be reconsidered on merits. The Bench observed that Section 161 empowers the officer to correct errors apparent on record, and the payment made through DRC-03 qualified as such if it had been ignored in the original adjudication. The Court held that technical rejection without evaluation defeats the purpose of rectification provisions, which aim to prevent unnecessary litigation when simple corrections can be made administratively.
Judgment (Paras 7–9)
The Hon’ble Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the concerned GST authority to re-examine the rectification application dated 10.04.2024 on merits under Section 161 of the CGST Act. If any inadvertent omission or error is found in the order-in-original, the same shall be rectified, and a fresh speaking order shall be passed. The petitioner shall be entitled to pursue remedies available under law if still aggrieved.
All pending applications were also disposed of.
Summary of Cases Referred
| Case | Citation | Principle / Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| None specific cited in judgment | – | Court relied primarily on interpretation of Section 161 of CGST Act allowing rectification of errors apparent on record. |
Between Fine Lines (Trade Perspective)
This decision reinforces that errors like non-consideration of payments made through Form DRC-03 are rectifiable under Section 161 of the CGST Act, without compelling taxpayers to file a costly and time-consuming appeal. The judgment encourages a practical administrative approach—where genuine computation mistakes or omissions can be corrected through rectification rather than prolonged litigation.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
