NAND KISHORE GARG vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

UKHC010153252026

2026:UHC:8110-DB

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/B) No. 704 of 2026

09 September, 2026



Nand Kishore Garg
--Petitioner
Versus

Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax
--Respondent


Present:-

Mr. Rohit Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the respondents.


Coram:Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J.

Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. (Oral)
Petitioner submitted an application for
rectification of Order-in-Original dated 29.08.2024, passed
by Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division, Rudrapur. That
rectification application was submitted by the petitioner on
17.01.2025 well within the time as per Notification No.
22/2024-CT dated 08.10.2024. Since decision on the
rectification application was not taken for a considerable
period of time, petitioner filed Writ Petition (M/B) No. 331 of
2026, Nand Kishore Garg vs. Assistant Commissioner,
Central Gooods and Services Tax, which was disposed of by
Coordinate Bench of this Court on 05.05.2026 with a
direction to the concerned authority to decide the

2
rectification application within a period of eight weeks from
the date of presentation of a certified copy of the order.
2. The rectification application submitted by the
petitioner is rejected by the order dated 30.06.2026. The
reason for rejection of that application is indicated in
paragraph nos. 6.7, 7 & 8 of the impugned order, which is
reproduced below:-
“6.7 As per aforesaid discussion, as per
provisions laid down in Section 161 of the CGST
Act, 2017 prescribes that "The proper officer for
carrying out rectification of the said order shall be
the authority who had issued such order, and the
said authority shall take a decision on the said
application and issue the rectified order, as far as
possible, within a period of three months from the
date of the of issue of such decision or order or
notice or certificate or any other document, as the
case may be." Since, the OIO dated 29.08.2024
was uploaded on portal on 30.08.2024 vide ref.
No. ZD0508240226992 dated 30.08.2024, order of
rectification should have been passed within three
months of the date of its issuance i.e. up to
30.11.2024 or not beyond 28.02.2025 as
rectification shall not be done after a period of six
months from the date of issuance of such order.
Further, I find that as per the provisions of
Notification No. 22/2024-CT dated 08.10.2024,
last date to decide the said rectification
application was on or before 17.04.2025.
7. Since, the present adjudicating
authority/proper officer has joined the
jurisdictional position on 26.05.2025 only, the
time due for the passing rectification order in the
instant case was already been lapsed. I further
find that due to issues in the BO portal, the
application of rectification was also not reflecting
at the end of the present adjudicating
authority/proper officer.

3
8. In view of the above discussions and
findings, being time barred, rectification in the
instant OIO cannot be done at this point of time
as per provisions laid down under Section 161 of
the CGST Act, 2017 as well as time-line prescribed
under 22/2024-CT dated 08.10.2024. Thus, I
have no other option than to dispose the
application filed by the applicant for rectification
in OIO reference No. ZD0508240226992 dated
30.08.2024 [OIO No.17/AC/CGST/Rudrapur
/2024-25 dated 29.08.2024] without considering
the ground made in the application and
accordingly, making any rectification in the said
order.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the reason assigned for rejecting petitioner’s rectification
application is unsustainable, as Clause-4 of the Notification
dated 08.10.2024 (which is reproduced in paragraph 6.7 of
the impugned order) nowhere provides that a decision, if not
taken on the rectification application within three months,
cannot be taken thereafter. He submits that the expression
used in Clause-4 of Notification dated 08.10.2024 is that
decision on rectification application shall be taken as far as
possible within three months from the date of making such
application. He further submits that the Assistant
Commissioner, CGST Division, Rudrapur, in paragraph 6.6
of the impugned order has admitted that the rectification
application was filed by the petitioner well within time as
prescribed under Notification dated 08.10.2024, therefore,
that application could not have been rejected only on the
ground that a period of more than three months has elapsed
after filing of that application. He further submits that the

4
impugned order dated 30.06.2026 is in teeth of the Division
Bench order of this Court passed in Writ Petition (M/B) No.
331 of 2026, Nand Kishore Garg Vs. Assistant Commissioner
Central Goods and Services Tax, where the competent
authority was asked to take a decision on petitioner's
rectification application on merits.
4. We find substance in the submission made by
learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Since petitioner's application for rectification was
made well within time, therefore, the competent authority
could not have refused to decide the application on merits
merely because a period of more than three months has
elapsed after filing of the application. Clause-4 of the
Notification dated 08.10.2024 unequivocally fixes a timeline
of three months, however, that timeline is not mandatorily to
be followed, and it indicates that the competent authority
shall make endeavor to take decision on rectification
application within three months; but it doesn't mean that
once three months' period has expired, the competent
authority becomes functus officio or loses the power to decide
the application on merits.
6. In such view of the matter, the impugned order
dated 30.06.2026 is quashed and set aside. The matter is
remitted back to the Assistant Commissioner, CGST

5
Division, Rudrapur to decide the rectification application of
the petitioner on merits within a period of three months.

(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
09.09.2026 09.09.2026


Shiv/