2023 (6) TMI 532 - HC - GST

Validity of Assessment Order - rejection of rectification application filed under Section 161 of GST Act - HELD THAT - The petitioner filed an application under Section 161 of the Act seeking rectification of errors allegedly apparent on record. This application has come to be rejected by way of order dated 18.04.2023 - The officer refers to Section 161 of the Act, which provides for rectifications only of an error apparent on the face of record. He enumerates the various opportunities granted to the petitioner to supply the break-up of the ITC claimed and the reconciliation and notes non- compliance with those directions. An attempt is made to state that the Assessing Officer could well have examined the particulars that accompanying the return that were part of the file might have contained the details that he was looking for, and come to a proper conclusion in law even suo motu, without expecting the petitioner to supply the same. This is too much to expect from the Assessing Officer and it is not for an assessee who has not made even a solitary attempt to cooperate or assist in the assessment proceedings to lay the blame at the doorstep of the revenue - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The challenge to an order of assessment under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the rejection of a rectification application under Section 161 of the Act.

Assessment Order Challenge:
The petitioner did not cooperate during the assessment process, despite receiving various notices including a show cause notice. The issue on merits pertains to the grant of Input Tax Credit (ITC). The petitioner failed to justify its claim of ITC despite being given opportunities to do so. The officer called for details of ITC category wise/tax type wise, which the petitioner did not provide adequately. The petitioner argued that there were no variations in its ITC claims, but failed to reconcile the differences between returns filed and auto-populated data.

Rectification Application Rejection:
The petitioner's application under Section 161 for rectification of errors was rejected as there was no material supplied that indicated any error apparent on record. The officer had granted multiple opportunities for the petitioner to provide necessary information for reconciliation, which was not complied with. The petitioner's argument that the Assessing Officer should have examined accompanying details without their submission was deemed unreasonable.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the Writ Petitions and connected Miscellaneous Petitions due to the petitioner's lack of cooperation in the assessment process and failure to assist in providing necessary information. The Assessing Officer was not expected to rectify errors without the petitioner's cooperation, and hence the rejection of the rectification application was upheld.