Introduction

Once an order is passed by a judicial authority it becomes final unless appeal has been filed against said order.  What is the remedy if the aggrieved party finds that there are some errors/clerical mistakes in the order passed?  Whether such mistakes can be rectified in the appeal or in a separate procedure?  Such mistakes can be rectified on filing a rectification application before the Authority who passed the order.  The tax laws provide separate provisions for rectification of mistakes.  Section 161 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘Act’ for short) for rectification of mistakes in the impugned order.

Types of errors

There are three types of errors, commonly found in adjudication orders–

• errors in fact;
• errors in law;
• and clerical or arithmetical errors. 

An error means mistakes, faults, inaccuracies, or incorrect beliefs. It is legally established that both errors in law and errors in fact can be rectified.   Rectification can be done only it is established that there in apparent error on the face of the record. 

Apparent on the face of record

Section 161 of the Act gives powers to the officers of the GST Department to rectify any error which is apparent on the face of record.  The term ‘rectification’ and the expression ‘error apparent on the face of the record’ has not been defined in the Act.  The errors that are patent, obvious, readily visible, and discernible from the document itself can be considered errors that are evident on the face of the records and dealt with under Section 161 of the Act.  The error apparent on the face of record does not include the mistakes bearing questionable or arguable things in them, including clarifications, long and elaborate arguments, and needed supportive evidence.

The term ‘mistake’ included the following-

• Misreading a clear provision is an error.
• Applying an inapplicable provision.
• Ignoring a mandatory provision.
• Application of an incorrect provision of the Act.
• Disregard of decisions by the jurisdictional High Court.

The   term ‘record’ can be meant as a comprehensive record of the whole situation, including entire proceedings such as documents and materials provided by the concerned parties and officially taken on record by the authorities. When the order was issued, which is the subject matter of the rectification process, these records were available.

In ‘Mrs. Freny Rashid Chennai v. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty ‘ – [(1973) 90 ITR 31 (Andhra Pradesh)], the High Court held that a mistake apparent from the record is a mistake that is manifest, plain, or obvious, a mistake that can be realised without a debate or dissertation. A mistake which can be discovered by a process of elucidation or argument or a debate, cannot be considered to be a mistake apparent from the record. The scope of the expression ‘mistake apparent from the record’ is much wider than the expression ‘mistake apparent on the face of the record.

Validity of assessment

Section 160(1) of the Act provide that no assessment, re-assessment, adjudication, review, revision, appeal, rectification, notice, summons or other proceedings done, accepted, made, issued, initiated, or purported to have been done, accepted, made, issued, initiated in pursuance of any of the provisions of this Act shall be invalid or deemed to be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission therein, if such assessment, re-assessment, adjudication, review, revision, appeal, rectification, notice, summons or other proceedings are in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intents, purposes and requirements of this Act or any existing law.

Rectification under GST laws

Section 161 of the Act provides for the rectification of errors by the Authorities.  Section 161of the Act provides that without prejudice to the provisions of section 160, and notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, any authority, who has passed or issued any decision or order or notice or certificate or any other document, may rectify any error which is apparent on the face of record in such decision or order or notice or certificate or any other document.

The above said section provides that rectification may be done in respect of any decision or order or notice or certificate or any other document which is apparent on the face of the record by any authority.  Therefore, it is clear the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, first appellate authority, appellate tribunal are subjected to rectification if the order is suffering of any error apparent on the face of the record.   The orders passed by the said authorities under any section of the Act may be rectified by filing an application under Section 161 of the Act.

Who can file rectification application?

Section 161 of the Act provides who can file rectification application as detailed below-

• the authority who passed the order, on his own motion;
• where such error is brought to its notice by any officer appointed under this Act or an officer appointed under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or an officer appointed under the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act; or
• by the affected person.

Time limit for filing rectification application

The rectification application by the eligible person shall be applied before the rectifying authority within a period of 3 months from the date of issue of such decision or order or notice or certificate or any other document.  There is no provision in the Act for filing delay condonation petition, if the application is filed after the limitation period of 3 months.

Time limit for disposal of rectification application

Such rectification shall be done after a period of 6 months from the date of issue of such decision or order or notice or certificate or any other document.  The said period of six months shall not apply in such cases where the rectification is purely in the nature of correction of a clerical or arithmetical error, arising from any accidental slip or omission. 

Rectification affecting any person

The Madras High Court in ‘Eminent Textiles Mills Private Limited v. State Tax Office, Rajapalayam – 2 Assessment Circle’ – 2025 (101) GSTL 124, held that rectification involves alteration and where there is no alteration there is no rectification.  Third proviso to Section 161 will kick in only when there is rectification and the aid rectification affects any person.  If such rectification adversely affects any person, the principles of natural justice shall be followed by the authority carrying out such rectification.

Non-payment of tax dues

In ‘Mani Blue Metals & M. Sand v. The State Tax Officer, Palacode’ – 2024 (7) TMI 803 – Madras High Court, an assessment order was passed by the proper officer against the writ petitioner for non-payment of tax dues under Reverse Charge Mechanism and alleged show payment of tax on outward supply.  The petitioner, instead of filing an appeal before the first Appellate Authority, filed a rectification application by the proper officer who assessed the case.  The said Authority did not dispose the said application within 6 months from the date of passing the order.  Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition before the High Court.  The High Court directed the Department to dispose the rectification application filed within a period of three month from the date of receipt of hon’ble high court order passed. 

Rectification of mistakes in returns

In ‘Hindustan Construction Company Limited v. Union of India’ – 2026 (106) GSTL 46 (Kar.), the petitioner filed GST returns for the period from July 2017 to March 2018 and later found that there are errors in Form GSTR-1 where B2C supplies were reported as B2B.  The petitioner corrected the Form GSTR – 1 in 2019.  However, the Department issued show cause notice under Section 73(1) of the Act alleging that the corrections are not permitted.  The petitioner field the present writ petition before the High Court. The High Court held that the right to correct clerical or arithmetical flows from right to do business and software limitations cannot curtail such right.  Further there is no loss to revenue by such rectifications.  The High Court quashed the proceedings and directed the Department to accept the corrected returns and proceed in accordance with the law.

Clerical mistakes

In ‘Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise v. Deepa Trader’ – 2025 (102) GSTL 194 (SC), appellants found some clerical errors viz. wrongly mentioning of number/date of invoice and name/GSTIN of recipients, non-mentioning of some invoice details though tax was paid fully, and payments were claimed to have happened on account of carelessness of part time accountant and lack of knowledge and unfamiliarity of  respondent assessee with procedures and newness in portal system in initial phases of newly implemented GST law and same were brought to the notice by their customers on ground that the right to correct mistakes in nature of clerical/arithmetical error should not be denied without good justification as no mala fide intention was attributed to them.  The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition filed by the Department

Rectification of show cause notice

In ‘J.S.W. Techno Projects Management Limited v. Union of India’ – 2026 (104) GSTL 81 (Bom.) a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner filed the rectification application against the show cause notice alleging error apparent as notice ignored taxes paid and raised valuation issues on includability of free of cost supplies  as per circular No. 38/12/2018-GST, dated 26.03.2018.  The application was rejected without hearing.  The petitioner filed a writ petition against the rejection order before High Court.  The High Court held that the word ‘notice’ in Section 161 was to instruments having immediate prejudicial or demand effect, not to show cause notice.  No error apparent was shown since the show cause notice imposed no liability and alleged mistakes would be urged in reply with the documents. The High Court further held that valuation issues regarding includability of free samples were disputed questions not amenable to rectification jurisdiction.  The High Court dismissed the writ petition.                    

In ‘Aruni Stone Crusher v. Superintendent, CGST & Central Excise, Jaipur’ – 2025(103) GSTL 313 (Ori.), the petitioner received show cause notices from the Department for the period from 2018 – 19 to 2022 – 23, seeking GST on royalty for permissible limit and extraction beyond permissible limit.  The Assistant Commissioner issued demand-cum-show cause notice under Section 74 of the Act.  The petition filed an application under Section 161 of the Act for the rectification of the said show cause notice. The Assistant Commissioner fixed personal hearing without reference to rectification application.  Therefore, the tax payer filed by the present writ petition before the High Court.  The High Court directed the Department to consider the maintainability of rectification application.  If maintainable the High Court directed to decide the case on merits.

Interest

In ‘Niranjan Sahu v. Additional Sales Tax Officer’ – 2025 (102) GSTL 150 (Ori), the petitioner is a supplier of services and work contractor.  He paid taxes pertaining to the year 2020 – 21.  But the Department levied interest under Section 50 of the Act.  The petitioner found mistakes in the said order and filed a rectification application under Section 161 of the Code.  While the rectification application was pending before the Authority, the Authority issued a notice in Form GST DRC – 13 to a third party for the recovery of the said amount.  The High Court held that since the petition for rectification had not been disposed of, the Court directed the authority to afford an opportunity to the petitioner and dispose of the petitioner for rectification within a period of 4 weeks from the date of order. 

Benefit of notification

In ‘Easy Infra Inc. v. Union of India’– 2024 (90) GSTL 265 (Ker.) the petitioner challenged the order-in-original, dated 27.12.2023 raising   demand not sustainable in law as assessee was entitled to the benefit of the Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax, dated 28.06.2017 where construction of building for Government entities was entitled to a lower tax rate.  The assessee contended that the said notification had not been taken into consideration and benefit of input tax credit had also not been granted to the assessee.  The Department contended that the writ petition was not maintainable and the petitioner should seek alternative remedy of appeal.  The High Court held that the assessee should approach authority which issued order-in-original by filing an application for rectification under Section 161 of the Act within 10 days. These 10 days period shall be excluded for the calculation of limitation.

Failure to produce E-Way bills

In ‘Golden Enterprises v. Deputy State Tax Officer – 1, Thiruverumbur Assessment Circle, Trichy’ – 2025 (99) GSTL 490 (Mad.) the assessee filed the writ petition before the High Court challenging the rectification rejection order dated 14.03.2025  under Section 73 of Tamil Nadu State GST Act for the assessment year 2019 – 2020.  The petitioner contended that the order passed under Section 73 is primarily based on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce E-way bills and invoices.  The said decision was arrived at without proper scrutiny of the records submitted by the petitioner.  The order is passed in violation of the principles of Natural Justice.  The Department contended that the petitioner did not upload the requested documents.  The writ petitioner is having alternative remedy by way of filing appeal. The High Court disposed the writ petition with directions that the petitioner may file appeal before the appellate Authority.  If the appeal is filed within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order of the High Court, the appellate authority shall entertain the appeal and dispose the appeal within 3 months from the date of receipt of appeal.

Duplication

In ‘Nabati Food (India) Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise, Audit-I, Chennai’ – 2026 (104) GSTL 171 (Mad.), the petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 27.02.225 passed under Section 73 of the Act.  The rectification application filed by petitioner was also rejected by the Authority on 27.05.2025.  The order dated 27.02.2025 also included the order dated 03.02.2025, the only issue pertained to excess input tax credit availed in GSTR – 3B compares to GSTR – 2A for a sum of Rs.1.08 crore.  The Department contended that the petitioner can avail the alternative remedy against the impugned order.  The High Court considered the case.  The High Court observed that on perusal of the impugned order dated 27.02.2025 passed for the period from 2017 – 18 to 2021-22, it prima facie appears that there is a duplication of demand insofar excess ITC availed.  This matter should be examined by the /department under Section 161of the Act.  The High Court set aside the impugned order and remitted back the matter to the authority concerned to reconsider the issue afresh.

Wrongful availment of Input tax credit

In ‘HVR Solar Private Limited v. Sales Tax Officer, AVATO’ – 2025 (98) 131 (Del.) a show cause notice was issued to the assessee for wrongful availment of input tax credit.  A demand was issued to the assessee.  The assessee moved an application for rectification or the said order alleging that there was an error in calculation.   The rectification application was rejected by the Authority. The assessee filed a writ petition before the High Court.  The petitioner contended that that no hearing was afforded to it.  The High Court held that if the rectification is to be decided adversely affecting the right of the applicant, the principles of natural justice had to be followed and a hearing ought to be given, if sought.  Therefore, the High Court set aside the impugned order.

Penalty

In ‘SPY Agro Industries Limited v. Union of India and others’ – 2022 (5) TMI 1074 – AP High Court, the High Court held that Section 62, which governs assessment of non-filers, authorises assessment to the best of the officer’s judgment and contemplates interest and late fee consequences but does not itself provide for imposition of penalty. The Corrigendum-cum-Addendum dated 27.08.2020 and the subsequent rectification dated 12.11.2020 introduced penalty liability under Section 122(2)(a) which was not part of the original assessment notice dated 13.08.2020. Section 161 expressly mandates that where a rectification adversely affects any person, the authority carrying out such rectification must follow the principles of natural justice. The Court found that penalties creating additional liability were imposed without giving the petitioner any opportunity of hearing; consequently the exercise amounted to imposing a new adverse obligation through rectification without complying with the audi alteram partem requirement. For these reasons the impugned orders imposing penalty by way of corrigendum/rectification were held unsustainable and were set aside. 

Rejection of rectification application

In ‘Orissa Stevedores Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of CT and GST, Cuttack’-2024(90) GSTL 87(Ori.) the assessee has applied for rectification of order passed under Section 73 of the Act.  The said application was rejected.  The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court.  The writ petitioner contended that no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner before rejecting the rectification application. The High Court held that the impugned order did not disclose the reason for the rejection of the application.  As per provisions, if rectification adversely affects any person, an opportunity of hearing was to be provided.  The High Court set aside the impugned order and the restored the rectification application for consideration of the authority on merits.

Violation of Natural Justice

In ‘Transzone Logistics India Private Limited v. Sales Tax Officer, Avato’– 2025 (99) GSTL 62 (Mad.) a rectification application was filed by the petitioner against the order of assessment.  The said application was rejected by the Department without assigning any reasons as to how order of assessment did not suffer from any apparent error and too without giving any opportunity of hearing.  The High Court observed that the impugned order did not indicate that there was any error apparent on record to reject application for rectification.  There was also no reasoning as to why there was no error apparent on the face of record.  Even if strenuous efforts had been made by the respondent that no personal hearing need to be given when an application had been made at the instance of the assessee, the same was not acceptable.  When an order was being made adverse to the assessee, then he should be given an opportunity of being heard when rectification adversely affected any person.  The principle of Natural justice was inbuilt by way of 3^rd proviso contemplated an opportunity of being heard.  However, when a rectification application was made and if it adversely affected the assessee and the rectification was being sought to be rejected without considering the reasons for rectification by giving reasons as to why such rectification application could not be entertained, it was also imperative that the assessee should be put on notice.  The High Court set aside the rectification order on the ground that the order was passed was contrary to the provisions of Section 161 of the Act. 

Rectification order without any reason

In ‘Ambiience Metcorp Private Limited v. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs’ – 2025 (99) GSTL 466 (Del.), the rectification application was filed by the petitioner seeking rectification of the impugned demand order.  No hearing was given to the petitioner in rectification application.  The same was rejected.   The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the High Court.  The High Court held that the impugned rectification order filed by the petitioner was found to be ‘unsatisfactory’ without recording any reasons to substantiate its finding.  The High Court observed that the impugned order was cryptic and non-speaking in nature.  The hearing was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 161 of the act.  The High Court set aside the impugned order and relegate the same to the concerned Adjudicating Authority for the petitioner to be given a proper heading in rectification application.

Vague application

In ‘Vinay Kumar Gupta v. State of UP’- 2025 (98) GSTL 331 (All.) a notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 61 of the Act.  The petitioner filed the reply.  An order was passed under Section 73 of the Act holding that the reply filed by the petitioner was not satisfactory.  The petitioner filed a rectification application under Section 161 of the Act against the said order.  The said application was dismissed hollering that there was no justification for rectification of order.  The petitioner filed the writ petition before the High Court challenging the dismissal of the rectification application.  The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard.  The High Court held that the rectification application filed by the petitioner was completely vague and no contention was raised.  Therefore, the High Court held that the Authority was justified in rejecting the vague application.  The High Court dismissed the writ petition.

Special procedure for rectification of orders for ITC under Section 73, 74, 107, 108

The Central Government, on the recommendations of the GST Council, notified a special procedure, vide Notification No. 22/2024-Central Tax, dated 08.10.2024, as detailed below-

• The aggrieved person shall file, electronically on the common portal, within a period of 6 months from the date of issuance of this notification, an application for rectification of an order issued under section 73 (Determination of tax where fraud etc. is not involved) or section 74 (Determination of tax where fraud etc. is involved) or section 107(Appeals to Appellate Authority) or section 108 (Revision before Revisionary Authority)  confirming demand for wrong availment of input tax credit, on account of contravention of provisions of  section 16 (4) of the  Act, but where such input tax credit is now available as per the provisions of Section 16 (5) or (6) of the  Act, and where appeal against the said order has not been filed.
• The said person shall, along with the said application, upload the information in the proforma in Annexure A of the notification.
• The proper officer for carrying out rectification of the said order shall be the authority who had issued such order.
• The said authority shall take a decision on the said application and issue the rectified order, as far as possible, within a period of 3 months from the date of the said application.
•  Where any rectification is required to be made in the order referred to in paragraph 1 and, the said authority has issued a rectified order thereof, then the said authority shall upload a summary of the rectified order electronically–
• in FORM GST DRC-08, in cases where rectification of an order issued under section 73 or section 74 of the said Act is made; and
• in FORM GST APL-04, in cases where rectification of an order issued under section 107 or section 108 of the said Act is made.
• The rectification is required to be made only in respect of demand of such input tax credit which has been alleged to be wrongly availed in contravention of provisions of  section 16 (4) of the Act, but where such input tax credit is now available as per the provisions of the section 16 (5) or (6).
• If such rectification adversely affects the said person, the principles of natural justice shall be followed by the authority carrying out such rectification.

In case of rectification application is to be filed for the orders passed under Section 73 or 74 of the Act-

Click Dashboard > Services > User Services > My Applications.

Select “Application for rectification of order” in the Application Type field. Then, click the NEW APPLICATION button.

In case of rectification application is to be filed for the orders passed under Section 107 of the Act-

Click Dashboard > Services > User Services > View Additional Notices/Orders Additional Notices and Orders page is displayed.

Click the View hyperlink to go to the Case Details screen of the issued Notice/Order. Case Details page is displayed. The APPLICATIONS tab is selected by default. Select the ORDERS tab and click the “Initiate Rectification” link.

In case where an application for rectification of an order issued under section 108 of the CGST Act is to be filed:

Click Dashboard > Services > User Services > View Additional Notices/Orders   

Additional Notices and Orders page is displayed. Click the View hyperlink to go to the Case Details screen of the issued Notice/Order.

Case Details page is displayed. The NOTICES tab is selected by default. To submit Rectification Request against the Revision Order issued to you by the Revisional Authority, select the ORDERS tab and click the “Initiate Rectification” link.

Rejection of application

Such an application would be summarily rejected by the proper officer with a remark that, ‘The rectification application is rejected as it is found that the same is not covered under the notification No. 22/2024 – Central tax dated 08.10.2024, as no such issue is involved in the said order pertaining to wrong availment of input tax credit on account of contravention of provisions of sub-section (4) of section 16 of the CGST Act, and where such input tax credit is now available as per the provisions of sub-section (5) or sub-section (6) of section 16 of the CGST Act’.

Appeal

In cases where any rectification has been made by the proper officer in the order for which the rectification application has been filed, an appeal against such rectified order can be filed under the provisions of section 107 of the Act.  Against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) appeal may be filed under section 112 of the CGST Act, within the time limit specified therein. 

Points to consider in regard to rectification

• Section 107 of the Act confers the right to appeal to any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under the Act by an adjudicating authority.
• An appeal must ordinarily be filed within three months from the date of communication of the impugned order (with a permissible extension of one additional month upon showing sufficient cause).
• Rectification application cannot be filed if appeal is filed before the Appellate Authority.  If rectification application is filed appeal cannot be filed.
• A rectification order passed under Section 161 which modifies or alters the original order in any manner prejudicial to the assessee, constitutes a fresh cause of action, giving rise to an independent right to appeal under Section 107.
• The expiry of the limitation period for preferring an appeal against the original order does not bar the assessee from challenging the subsequent rectification order, but only to the extent of the modifications or changes introduced by such rectification.
• However, the rectification order does not reopen or extend the right to challenge the original order in toto.
• The assessee cannot agitate issues which remained unmodified or untouched by the rectification, if the limitation period for appealing against the original order has already lapsed.
• One High Court held that when a rectification application is filed and later disposed of, the limitation for filing an appeal should be counted from the date of disposal of the rectification application.
• Another High Court applied the principle similar to Section 14 of the Limitation Act, ruling that the time spent in bona fide rectification proceedings should be excluded when calculating limitation.
• Nowhere does the Act clarify whether time spent pursuing rectification should be ignored, excluded, or reckoned while computing the limitation for appeal.
  
  Read More: Attachment & Freeze of Bank accounts + Cash Seizure, Including When Handed Over To Income Tax – How To Defend?