2024 (1) TMI 1011 - HC - GST

Power of rectification of errors apparent on the face of record - Power to review versus Power to rectify - cancellation of GST registration - HELD THAT - The Hon ble Supreme Court in SASI (D) THROUGH L. RS. VERSUS ARAVINDAKSHAN NAIR AND ORS. 2017 (3) TMI 1687 - SUPREME COURT has held that mere erroneous decision is distinguished from decision which could be characterised as vitiated by error apparent. It was further held that review of an order is permissible, if any, grounds mentioned under Order 41 Rule 1 is made out. Review is not appeal in disguise, where erroneous decision re-heard and corrected but lies for patent error. Error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by process of reasoning, can hardly be called as error apparent on the face of record. That apart, if the power of rectification as mentioned in Section 161 is to be construed as a power to review an earlier decision, then the statute mandates that the authority should be able to point out the error, which is apparent on the face of the record in a decision taken by him on November 9, 2022. Unfortunately, the order passed by the appellate authority dated 23rd August, 2023 digitally signed on 24th August, 2023 does not point out any error, which is apparent on the face of the record. The order suffers from illegality inasmuch as the appellate authority has rewritten its earlier order, which is impermissible in exercise of its powers under Section 161 of the Act - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
The legal issue in this case involves the scope of Section 161 of the W.B.G.S.T. Act, specifically regarding the power of rectification of errors apparent on the face of the record.

Summary:

Issue 1 - Scope of Section 161 of the Act:
The appellant challenged an order passed by the appellate authority under Section 161 of the W.B.G.S.T. Act, which dealt with rectification of errors apparent on the face of the record. The appellant's registration was initially canceled, then reinstated on appeal, but subsequently, the original authority sought to rectify the order. The Court emphasized that the power of rectification is not a review in disguise and is limited to correcting errors that are self-evident on the face of the record. The appellate authority erred by attempting to rewrite its earlier decision without pointing out any apparent error.

Key Points:
- The language in Section 161 is similar to Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, indicating limited jurisdiction for rectification.
- The Court clarified that rectification is not akin to review and should not involve rewriting previous decisions.
- The appellate authority failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record in its decision to cancel the appellant's registration.

Precedent and Conclusion:
The Court referenced a similar provision in the Customs Act and a Supreme Court ruling to distinguish between mere erroneous decisions and those vitiated by apparent errors. It held that the appellate authority's order rewriting the earlier decision was impermissible under Section 161. As a result, the appeal was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and the original order restoring the appellant's registration was reinstated.

Outcome:
The appeal, writ petition, and connected application were allowed, directing the restoration of the appellant's registration within three weeks from the date of the judgment, with no costs incurred by either party.