Section 161 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Rectification of error –-–-The petitioner sought directions to the Respondent to withdraw the tax demand made vide assessment order dated 11.11.2020 or refund the eligible credit of tax to the petitioner. The respondent allegedly issued SCNs dated 21.12.2018, 05.09.2019 and 14.10.2019 to the project site of the petitioner, which was closed and as such he was not aware of those notices. The respondent passed an assessment order dated 11.11.2020, directing the petitioner to pay alleged wrongly transitioned ITC for Rs. 7,96,36,717/-along with interest and penalty. The petitioner had filed rectification application on 03.11.2021 under Section 161, which has been rejected by the respondent through the order dated 14.12.2021, on the ground that the order originally passed on 11.11.2020, therefore, any rectification application to be filed within three months period, which ends on 10.02.2021. Further, the extended period as held by the Supreme court is over by 02.10.2021. The court observed that the limitation period is saved by the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, hence, on that ground mainly if the rectification application is rejected through the impugned order, the same shall not stand in the legal scrutiny. Further, the language used in Section 161 is that “without prejudice to the provisions of Section 160 of the Act and notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act”. The words “notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act” covers the entire provisions of the Act with the said non-abstante clause thereby all other issues or all other mandates under various provisions of the Act stand excluded when rectification proceedings initiated either suo motu or at the instance of any officer. In view of the saving of the limitation, since the application for rectification has been filed by the petitioner, the same shall be independently considered notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of the Act. Therefore, the earlier notices for personal hearing issued, for which, the petitioner has not responded etc., cannot be cited as a reason for rejecting the rectification application.

Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court quashed the impugned order, and remitted the matter back to the respondent for reconsideration. The respondent shall borne in mind the independent nature of the decision making process with regard to the alleged rectification of error anything apparently on the face of the record to be rectified on its own merits, wherein after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the rectification application shall be accordingly decided within a period of six weeks.