2025 (1) TMI 886 - HC - GST

Challenge to impugned order - Seeking direction to respondent to reconsider and rectify based on the petitioner's explanation dated 18.11.2024 in the light of the provisions of Section 161 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act - time limitation - HELD THAT - After assessment order has been made, Section 161 of the GST Act provides for an application to be made for rectification. Such rectification can be disposed either in favour of the assessee or against him. If any rectification is made as prayed for, the same would get merged into the original order. Just because the rectification application has been rejected, the period of limitation to challenge the original assessment order cannot be said to begin from the date on which the original order was passed, it would only count from the date on which the order of rectification has been passed. In the present case, the original order of assessment was made on 19.08.2024 and the order in rectification was made on 22.11.2024. Therefore, the period of limitation for challenging the order of assessment dated 19.08.2024 shall start ticking from the date of rejection of the rectification application i.e., from 22.11.2024. It is made clear that when the appeal is filed by the assessee as against the original order of assessment, the period of limitation shall be calculated from the date on which the rectification had been dismissed. Petition disposed off.

Summary

In the case before the Madras High Court, the petitioner challenged an "impugned demand order" dated 19.08.2024 and the subsequent rejection of a rectification request dated 22.11.2024. The petitioner sought a reconsideration based on Section 161 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. The petitioner argued that the assessment order lacked proper reasoning and that the rectification application was dismissed without justification.

The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, argued that the rectification request was considered but rejected due to insufficient documentary evidence from the petitioner. The respondent suggested that the petitioner could pursue an appeal, which is a statutory remedy.

A key issue was the calculation of the "period of limitation" for filing an appeal. The petitioner was concerned that the appeal period might be calculated from the original assessment date, potentially rendering the appeal untimely. However, the court clarified that the limitation period for challenging the original assessment order should commence from the date of the rectification application's rejection, i.e., 22.11.2024.

The court disposed of the Writ Petition, granting the petitioner the liberty to file an appeal with the limitation period starting from the rectification order's rejection date. No costs were imposed, and related miscellaneous petitions were closed.