Home

High Court refuses to entertain writ against GST rectification orders involving disputed questions of fact

Copy LinkShareSave

A bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar heard a writ petition under Article 226 challenging multiple GST rectification and re-rectification orders passed by assessing authorities, and the scope of correction under Section 161 of the CGST/APS GST regime.

The court dismissed the petition and held that the challenge could not be entertained under Article 226 where disputed questions of fact were involved and statutory remedies existed. The judges recorded that the assessing authorities followed statutory procedure, that rectification under Section 161 was available only for errors "on the face of record", and that the petitioner had not challenged the primary assessment order dated 17.04.2023 by filing the statutory appeal. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "As already noted supra, the petitioner has not challenged the assessment order dt.17.04.2023. Further, as per Section 161 of GST Act, the authorities are empowered to rectify any error which is on the face of record in such decision or order or notice or certificate or any other document. In the case on hand, as observed, the applications filed by the petitioner were considered and orders were passed. If at all, the petitioner is agreed the said orders, he ought to have challenged the same by filing appeal as provided under the Act. Therefore, the present writ petition cannot be entertained in view of involvement of disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone into while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India." The court further noted that it was "not inclined to exercise its extraordinary original jurisdiction" and therefore dismissed the petition while leaving the petitioner free to pursue remedies available under the statute.

Background The petitioner, a registered dealer providing manpower services to APSPDCL, came under scrutiny after an inspection by tax authorities. The authorities recorded that the petitioner failed to produce books of account and did not declare TDS amounts in GSTR-3B; they alleged suppression of outward supplies amounting to Rs.2,53,21,014/-. Pre-intimation in Form DRC-01A (28.11.2022) and a show-cause notice in Form DRC-01 (30.12.2022) under Section 74 were issued; the petitioner did not file objections to those notices. An assessment order dated 17.04.2023 raised a demand of Rs.1,01,05,575/- (tax, interest and penalty). The petitioner’s GST registration had earlier been cancelled on 23.06.2022; following an earlier writ (W.P. No. 8386 of 2023) and subsequent compliance with revocation procedure, registration was restored.

Following assessment, the petitioner filed rectification applications dated 06.07.2023 and 08.07.2023 under Section 161. This Court in W.P. No. 27307 of 2024 directed authorities to decide those applications; rectification and re-rectification orders were thereafter issued, which the petitioner impugned in the present writ petition, alleging denial of fair hearing and non-consideration of facts. The record showed that a personal hearing notice dated 18.01.2025 was issued and the petitioner attended the hearing on 20.01.2025, and that objections were considered before passing the impugned orders.

The High Court accepted the respondents’ contention that the rectification process was applied in accordance with law, and emphasized that where disputed factual issues exist the remedy was an appeal under the GST law rather than writ relief. The writ petition was dismissed; the court left open statutory remedies, imposed no costs, and directed that pending applications stand closed.

Case Details: Case No.: WP No.16393 of 2025 Case Title: Koperla Vijaya Bhaskar v. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner(s) ST, Markapur Circle and others; State of Andhra Pradesh Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Kotha Lakshmidhar For the Respondent(s): GP for Commercial Tax; Aravala Rama Rao (Sr. Counsel) for APSRTC (KKAC); Smt. Disha Chowdary, Assistant Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes