Rpj Polymers vs. Commissioner Of Dgst Delhi And Other
(Delhi High Court, Delhi)

Case Law
Petitioner / Applicant
Rpj Polymers
Respondent
Commissioner Of Dgst Delhi And Other
Court
Delhi High Court
State
Delhi
Date
Apr 8, 2022
Order No.
W.P.(C) 5849/2022
TR Citation
2022 (4) TR 5631
Related HSN Chapter/s
N/A
Related HSN Code
N/A

ORDER

1. Issue notice.

1.1 Mr Satyakam accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

2. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself.

3. The singular grievance of the petitioner is that a rectification should be carried out with regard to the date of cancellation of its registration, as reflected in the common portal concerning form GST REG-16. It is the petitioner’s assertion, that the date in the drop-down menu was wrongly keyed in i.e., the date keyed in was 30.06.2020, whereas the actual date that the petitioner intended to keyed in was 30.06.2021.

3.1. It appears that the respondents have taken a position that they have no powers to carry out the rectification.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to Section 161 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. For the sake of convenience, the said provision is extracted hereafter :

“Section 161 – Rectification of errors apparent on the face of record CGST ACT 2017 Without prejudice to the provisions of section 160, and notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, any authority, who has passed or issued any decision or order or notice or certificate or any other document, may rectify any error which is apparent on the face of record in such decision or order or notice or certificate or any other document, either on its own motion or where such error is brought to its notice by any officer appointed under this Act or an officer appointed under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or an officer appointed under the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act or by the affected person within a period of three months from the date of issue of such decision or order or notice or certificate or any other document, as the case may be:

Provided that no such rectification shall be done after a period of six months from the date of issue of such decision or order or notice or certificate or any other document:

Provided further that the said period of six months shall not apply in such cases where the rectification is purely in the nature of correction of a clerical or arithmetical error, arising from any accidental slip or omission:

Provided also that where such rectification adversely affects any person, the principles of natural justice shall be followed by the authority carrying out such rectification.” [Emphasis is ours.]

4.1. In our view, the said provision empowers the correction sought for by the petitioner.

5. Accordingly, the order dated 18.07.2021 is set aside.

5.1. The respondents are directed to carry out the rectification qua the date of cancellation of the petitioner’s registration, as indicated above.

5.2. The rectification so carried out, will also be incorporated in the portal.

5.3. The necessary steps, in this behalf, will be taken by the respondents, within two weeks of the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

6. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

  • Home
  • /
  • caselaw
  • /
  • rpj polymers vs commissioner of dGST delhi and other delhi high court

BUSY is a simple, yet powerful GST / VAT compliant Business Accounting Software that has everything you need to grow your business.

phone Sales & Support:

+91 82 82 82 82 82
+91 11 - 4096 4096