Expiry of the three-month period does not bar merits-based decision on a timely rectification application.

The petitioner sought rectification of the Order-in-Original dated 29 August 2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division, Rudrapur. The order was uploaded on 30 August 2024. The petitioner filed the rectification application on 17 January 2025, which the adjudicating authority accepted as having been filed within the time prescribed by Notification No. 22/2024-CT dated 8 October 2024.

As no decision was taken, the petitioner filed Writ Petition (M/B) No. 331 of 2026. On 5 May 2026, the Coordinate Bench directed the competent authority to decide the rectification application within eight weeks from presentation of the certified copy of that order.

The application was rejected on 30 June 2026 on the ground that the statutory and notified timelines had expired.

The authority also noted that the present officer had joined the jurisdiction only on 26 May 2025 and that the application had not appeared on the relevant portal because of portal-related issues.

The Court applied Section 161 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which governs rectification of errors apparent on the record and requires the proper officer to decide the application and issue a rectified order, as far as possible, within the prescribed period.

It also applied Notification No. 22/2024-CT dated 8 October 2024, particularly Clause 4, which provides that a decision on a rectification application should, as far as possible, be taken within three months from the date of the application.

The Court held that this timeline is directory rather than mandatory: its expiry does not make the competent authority functus officio or extinguish its power to decide an otherwise timely application on merits.

The authority was also required to comply with the earlier judicial direction to decide the application.

The Court found that the petitioner’s rectification application had admittedly been filed within the applicable prescribed period.

Clause 4 of the Notification used the expression “as far as possible,” which indicated an endeavour or directory timeline rather than an absolute jurisdictional limitation.

Therefore, the mere lapse of three months after filing could not justify refusal to examine the application on merits.

Administrative circumstances, including the subsequent officer’s joining date and portal difficulties, could not convert the directory timeline into a jurisdictional bar.

Moreover, the earlier writ order required the authority to take a decision on the application; rejecting it solely on limitation, without adjudicating its merits, failed to comply with the substance of that direction.

The three-month period under Clause 4 of Notification No. 22/2024-CT is directory and does not deprive the competent authority of jurisdiction to decide the application on merits.

Accordingly, the order dated 30 June 2026 was quashed and set aside.

The matter was remitted to the Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division, Rudrapur, with a direction to decide the petitioner’s rectification application on merits within three months.