Two Contradictory GST Orders On Same Allegations Not Sustainable: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has stated that two contradictory GST orders on the same allegations are not sustainable, and the second order cannot exist if the first one already dropped the proceedings. The Bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that the proceedings were dropped in the first order after accepting the explanation by the assessee, yet a second order was passed on the...
The Kerala High Court has stated that two contradictory GST orders on the same allegations are not sustainable, and the second order cannot exist if the first one already dropped the proceedings.
The Bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that the proceedings were dropped in the first order after accepting the explanation by the assessee, yet a second order was passed on the same allegations.
It is a matter which ought to have been rectified as it results in two mutually conflicting orders passed on the same issue by the Officers of the same Department, stated the bench.
In this case, the grievance of the assessee/petitioner is against Ext.P14 order, by which the rectification sought by the assessee, in respect of Ext.P8 order, was rejected on the reason that that assessee failed to submit the rectification application within the statutory period of six months as contemplated under Section 161 of the GST Act.
The bench observed that as far as the invocation of the powers under Section 161 of the GST Act is concerned, it is not confined to a situation where, the aggrieved party approaches the authority with an application for rectification.
When an error is brought to the notice of the officer concerned or otherwise the officer becomes aware of such error which is apparent on the face of record, the officer concerned can suo motu initiate the proceeding of rectification as well, stated the bench.
The bench further stated that “…….Ext.P7 being the first order passed, by the officer concerned accepting the explanation offered by the assessee, the second order namely Ext.P8, which is contrary to the finding in Ext.P7, could not have been passed. Therefore, when such a serious error was clearly pointed out before the competent authority, within the statutory period contemplated under Section 161 for rectification, such authority could not have refrained from invoking the powers of rectification…….”
The bench opined that since there is admittedly a duplication of the orders based on two proceedings initiated alleging the same irregularities, there was an error apparent on the face of the records as far as Ext.P8 order is concerned.
In view of the above, the bench allowed the petition.
Case Title: M/s Winter Wood Designers & Contractors India Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Tax Officer
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 9086 OF 2025
Counsel for Petitioner/ Assessee: K.S. Hariharan Nair, G. Remadevi, Harima Hariharan, Rajath R Nath and Dheeraj Sasidharan
Counsel for Respondent/ Department: Arun Ajay Sankar