Orissa High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 18621 of 2025 In the matter of an Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 *** Rajkishor Pati Aged about 44 years Son of Premananda Pati Resident of Koladia, P.O.: Bhutamundai, P.S.: Paradeep District: Jagatsinghpur At present Proprietor of M/s. Baba Enterprisers GST No.21APGPP7644L1ZK At: Koladia, Bhutmundai, P.S.: Kujang District: Jagatsinghpur. … -VERSUS- 1. Union of India Represented through Secretary Ministry of Finance Department, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Project Manager Rail Vikas Nigam Limited (RVNL) At: 6.9 Acre Complex, Bhubaneswar District: Khordha. 3. The Chief Commissioner, CT & GST, Odisha Banijya Kar Bhawan, Cantonment Road P.O.: Buxibazar, District: Cuttack – 753 001. Petitioner W.P.(C) No.18621 of 2025 Page 1 of 36 4. The Deputy Commissioner Bhubaneswar Circle-III, Bhubaneswar District: Khordha. 5. The Chief Principal Commissioner CGST, CX and Customs At: C.R. Building, Rajaswa Bhawan Bhubaneswar – 7, District: Khordha 6. Goods and Services Tax Network At: World Mark-1, East Wing, 4th Floor Aerocity, New Delhi – 110 037… Opposite Parties. Counsel appeared for the parties: For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kumar Sahoo, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Deepak Kumar Gochhayat Central Government Counsel Mr. Avinash Kedia, Junior Standing Counsel (CGST) Mr. Sunil Mishra, Standing Counsel (CT & GST Organisation) P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. HARISH TANDON AND HONOURABLE JUSTICE MR. MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Date of Hearing : 22.09.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 22.09.2025 W.P.(C) No.18621 of 2025 Page 2 of 36 JUDGMENT MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.— To err is human; to forgive, divine— Alexander Pope, An Essay On Criticism. Nevertheless, to persist in mistake is ugly. So, mistake is a lesson: not a loss; it is a temporary, necessary detour, but not a dead end. Yet, non-consideration of prayer for rectification of inadvertent error crept in while filling up figures of registration number of the Rail Vikas Nigam Limited (RVNL)-opposite party No.2 in the return relating to the
Legal Reasoning
first quarter of Financial Year 2023-24 (April-June, 2023) showing deposit of Goods and Services Tax in the Tax Deduction at Source Account bearing No.21AACCR5652AlD8 of RVNL-opposite party No.2 in place of the Regular GST Registration No.21AACCR5652AlZZ of the opposite party No.2, before the authorities concerned, landed the taxpayer before this Court by way of filing the instant writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, beseeching following relief(s): “In the circumstances stated above, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this Writ Application, issue notices to the opposite parties to show cause as to why the grievance of the petitioner vide annexure -4 will not be consider and the opposite party No. 1 may kindly be directed to take W.P.(C) No.18621 of 2025 Page 3 of 36 appropriate step to rectify the mistake of the petitioner and take an appropriate step to rectify/transfer the TDS GST number of the opposite party No.2 account to Regular GST number account of opposite party No.2; And, pass such other Order/Orders, Writ/writs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case to meet the ends of justice; And, for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”
Decision
Facts narrated in the writ petition: 2. The details of narration as adumbrated by the writ petitioner reveals the following pertinent facts. 2.1. The petitioner, proprietor of M/s. Baba Enterprisers assigned with GST No.21APGPP7644L1ZK supplied goods and services by way of execution of earthwork for strengthening of embankment, toe protection works, supply of earth moving machine, mechanical equipments, manpower and construction materials to the various persons-recipients including the opposite party No.2 as per their requirements in connection with HDS-Pradeep New BG Rail Link Project of East Coast Railways. 2.2. While disclosing the transactions along with tax components involved therein in the return pertaining to Financial Year 2023-24 (April-June, 2023) inadvertently W.P.(C) No.18621 of 2025 Page 4 of 36 furnished return showing deposit of tax in the GSTIN bearing No.21AACCR5652AlD8 of RVNL-the opposite party No.2 relating to TDS instead of showing deposit of amount in Regular GSTIN:21AACCR5652AlZZ. 2.3. The petitioner has been supplying raw materials and machinery items and manpower to the opposite party No.2 in usual course of its business transactions, but the above mistake could come to fore when payment due is held up which caused filing of representations dated 07.06.2025 and 19.06.2025 before the opposite party No.2 for release of the payment of Rs.57,12,651/-. 2.4. The petitioner made an attempt before the opposite parties-GST authorities to allow it to rectify the mistake crept in the return and accordingly prayer is made by way of Letter dated 23.06.2025 indicating that in “The mismatch has been reported invoice No. BERVNL/23-24/43, date: 26.05.2023 of invoice amount Rs.16278991/- GST return period of May-23 & in invoice No. BERVNL/23-24/46, date: 21.06.2023 of invoice amount Rs. 10600297/- GST return period of Jun-23. The mismatch is of TDS GST No.21AACCR5652A1D8 (Rail Vikash GST No.21AACCR5652A1ZZ (Rail Vikash Nigam Limited.) and as per our understanding, this mismatch is due to the swapping of last two digits.” Limited.) Regular Nigam to 2.5. The amount of GST has already been deposited by the petitioner in the account of the opposite party No.2- W.P.(C) No.18621 of 2025 Page 5 of 36 RVNL against invoice No.BERVNL/23-24/46, dated 21.06.2023 comprising OGST of Rs.8,08,497/- and CGST of Rs.8,08,497/- (in toto Rs. 16,16,994/-) and invoice No.BERVNL/23-24/43, dated 26.05.2023 with respect to OGST Rs. 12,41,618/- and CGST Rs.12,41,618/- (Total Rs.24,83,236/-) in the Financial Year 2023-24 (May, 2023 and June, 2023). 2.6. Though appropriate taxes have been deposited with the opposite party No.2, none of the opposite parties, being approached by way of representations, has paid any heed to the grievance of the petitioner, which led to knocking of doors of this Court craving to issue writ of mandamus. Hearing: 3. The matter in writ petition came up for hearing on 29.07.2025 under the heading “Fresh Admission” and the Standing Counsel appearing for the CGST Organisation sought accommodation to receive instructions. After couple of adjournments, Junior Standing Counsel furnished copy of instruction as received from the CGST authorities showing helplessness in mitigating the grievance of the petitioner by considering the representation to rectify the defect in the return on the ground that time specified for this purpose has already been elapsed. W.P.(C) No.18621 of 2025 Page 6 of 36 3.1. Heard Sri Deepak Kumar Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri Deepak Gochhayat, learned Central Government Counsel; Sri Sunil Mishra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the CT & GST Organisation and Sri Avinash Kedia, learned Junior Standing Counsel representing CGST Organisation. Submissions: 4. Sri Deepak Kumar Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though due taxes have been credited to the exchequer, the manual error while filling up figures in the return could have been allowed to be rectified by the authorities concerned. 4.1. Non-consideration of such a plight of the petitioner would lead to double taxation inasmuch as the opposite party No.2 having withheld payment on account of supplies made would deduct like amount of tax by appropriating the same in its regular GST account notwithstanding the fact that the amount of tax has already been deposited in its other account, i.e., TDS registration number. Such double taxation would hit inhibition under Article 265 of the Constitution of India 5. Replicating the instructions as received from the CGST authorities, Sri Avinash Kedia, learned Junior Standing Counsel, would submit that the plea of the petitioner W.P.(C) No.18621 of 2025 Page 7 of 36 being time-barred, issue of writ of mandamus is uncalled for. 5.1. Sri Deepak Gochhayat, learned Central Government Counsel failed to place on record any instructions though the same is stated to have been sought for from proper quarters. 5.2. Sri Sunil Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the CT & GST Organisation submitted that it is for the GST Network which is required to take a call and he does not have any further instruction in this respect. Discussions and conclusion: 6. What is emanated from the documents upon scrutiny is that invoices were generated depicting registration number GSTIN: 21AACCR5652A1ZZ in connection with the supplies made to the opposite party No.2-RVNL by the petitioner. However, while filling up said figures of registration number, as averred by the petitioner and not disputed by the counsel representing the opposite parties, mistake crept in and in place of Regular GST Registration No.21AACCR5652AlZZ, GSTIN No.21AACCR5652AlD8 of RVNL-opposite party No.2 relating to Tax Deduction at Source has been mentioned. 6.1. In order to conceive the grievance of the petitioner and find resolution of trivial human error, this Court may W.P.(C) No.18621 of 2025 Page 8 of 36 emphasise that the authorities concerned ought to have taken recourse to provisions of Section 161 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act”, for short). 6.2. Provisions of Section 161 of the CGST Act stand as follows: “Rectification of errors apparent on the face of record.— Without prejudice to the provisions of Section 160, and in any other notwithstanding anything contained 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, either on its own motion or 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 within a period of three months from the date of issue of such decision or order or notice or certificate or any other document, as the case may be: Provided that no such rectification shall be done after a period of six months from the date of issue of such decision or order or notice or certificate or any other document: Provided further that the said period of six months the shall not apply rectification is purely in the nature of correction of in such cases where W.P.(C) No.18621 of 2025 Page 9 of 36 a clerical or arithmetical error, arising from any accidental slip or omission: Provided also that where such rectification adversely affects any person, the principles of natural justice shall the authority carrying out such be rectification.” followed by 6.3. The corresponding pari materia provision in Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“OGST Act”, for brevity) is also found. 6.4. Though the provision refers to error in decision or order, taking cue from expression “error which is apparent on the face of record” analogy could be drawn, as “return” filed on the basis of “self-assessment” is comprehended within the meaning of “assessment” as defined under Section 2(11) of the GST Act. 6.5. On a bare reading of Letter bearing Ref. No.BE/0039/ 2025, dated 25.06.2025 (Annexure-4) addressed to the opposite party-statutory authority, manifests that it is only last two letters have been swapped which led to showing deposit of amount of tax under a wrong account. Since it seems to be clerical or arithmetical error, arising from accidental slip or omission, the opposite parties-Revenue, instead of showing indifference on technical niceties, should have approached pragmatically. Such an action could have saved much valuable time and energy not only of the W.P.(C) No.18621 of 2025 Page 10 of 36 petitioner and other opposite parties, but also this Court. 6.6. As is apparent that due to error in typing the figures/ alphabets of registration number, the petitioner should not have been shown the exit doors by the authorities concerned and such refusal to rectify clerical or arithmetical error, arising from any accidental slip or omission, would tantamount to “double jeopardy”. At this juncture the perception as to accidental slip or omission as discussed in the context of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in Niyamat Ali Molla Vrs. Sonargon Housing Cooperative Society Ltd., (2007) 11 SCR 346 may be relevant. The observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said reported case runs as follows: “18. Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the court to correct its own error in a judgment, decree or order from any accidental slip or omission. The principle behind the said provision is actus curiae neminem gravabit i.e. nobody shall be prejudiced by an act of court. 19. The Code of Civil Procedure recognises the inherent power of the court. It is not only confined to the amendment of the judgment or decree as envisaged under Section 152 of the Code but also inherent power in general. The courts also have duty to see that the records are true and present the correct state of affair. There cannot, however, be any doubt W.P.(C) No.18621 of 2025 Page 11 of 36 whatsoever that the court cannot exercise the said jurisdiction so as to review its judgment. It cannot also exercise its jurisdiction when no mistake or slip occurred in the decree or order. This provision, in our opinion, should, however, not be construed in a pedantic manner. A decree may, therefore, be corrected by the court both in exercise of its power under Section 152 as also under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such a power of the court is well recognised. *** 21. The question came up for consideration before the Calcutta High Court in Bela Debi, AIR 1952 Cal 86, wherein it was held: (AIR pp. 89-90, paras 19-20) ‘19. It will thus be seen that there is a diversity of judicial opinion as to how far a court can go in rectifying its own decree. Where, of course, the amendment is in order to carry out its own meaning, there is no doubt about the power of the Court in effecting such corrections [see St. Nazaire Co., In re, (1879) 12 Ch D 88 (CA); Preston Banking Co. Vrs. William Allsup & Sons, (1891-94) All ER Rep 688 = (1895) 1 Ch 141 (CA)]. Nor can it be disputed that it has power to rectify mistakes which are of a ministerial kind [see Mellor Vrs. Swire, (1885) 30 Ch D 239 (CA)]. But the difficulty arises when it is found that the mistake is not one of the Court but is a mistake of the parties themselves. Mistakes in the description of properties in deeds, is illustrative of this kind of mistake. It is the parties who have made the mistake, and the mistake is continued in the W.P.(C) No.18621 of 2025 Page 12 of 36 pleadings and the decree. According to one view, Section 152 is confined to acts of the Court and, therefore, mistakes of parties made in the pleadings or deeds and documents evidencing the transaction cannot be corrected [L. Ram Chander Sarup Vrs. Mazhar Hussain, AIR 1919 All 264]. The second view is that under this section and Section 151, plaint, judgment and decree all can be amended [see Shiam Lal Vrs. Mt. Moona Kuar, AIR 1934 Oudh 352, AIR at p. 354; Ram Chandra Sahu Vrs. Jamna Prasad, AIR 1935 Oudh 92. A third view is that it is permissible under such circumstances to amend the decree and it is unnecessary to amend the plaint [Badri Pande Vrs. Chhangur Pandey, AIR 1933 All 102; Jamini Bala Biswas Vrs. Bank of Chettinad, Ltd., AIR 1935 Rang 522, AIR at p. 523]. Lastly, there is the view, which I have already noted, which goes to the extent of holding that the Court cannot only rectify pleadings and decrees but rectify documents evidencing the transactions themselves, upon which the suit was founded. I shall now state, what in my opinion, is the true meaning of Section 152, Civil Procedure Code. I am not in favour of giving a narrow construction to Section 152. I do not agree that Section 152 must necessarily refer to an ‘accidental slip or omission’ of the Court itself, or its ministerial officers. It does not say so in the section itself, and should not be interpreted as such. Where it is the Court’s own accidental slip or omission, or that of its ministerial 20. W.P.(C) No.18621 of 2025 Page 13 of 36 officers, there can be no doubt that the section applies. But it gives power to rectify any accidental slip or omission in a judgment, decree or order, and might include an accidental slip or omission traceable to the conduct of the parties themselves. But it must be an ‘accidental slip or omission’. A mistake made by the parties in a deed upon which the suit is founded, and repeated in the judgment, decree or order, may or may not be an ‘accidental slip or omission’. Where it is clear, that such is the case, then I do not see why the Court cannot set it right. In doing so, what is going to be rectified is, the judgment decree or order, and it is not at all necessary to rectify either the pleadings or the deed. In making such corrections, however, the Court can only proceed on the footing that there could be no reasonable doubt as to what it really intended to say in its judgment, decree or order. It cannot go into any disputed questions. If there is a particular description of a property in a deed, and a suit has been instituted on the strength of that description, and a decree passed, it is not permissible in proceedings under Section 152 to go into disputed questions as to what property was intended to be dealt with, by the parties in the deed. I agree with Gentle, C.J. that such a question can only be dealt with, in appropriate proceedings under the Specific Relief Act [see T.M. Ramakrishnan Chettiar Vrs. G. Radhakrishnan Chettiar, AIR 1948 Mad 13. But it may so happen that the mistake is so palpable that nobody can possibly have any doubt as to what the parties W.P.(C) No.18621 of 2025 Page 14 of 36 as in a conveyance a property meant or what the Court meant when it passed its judgment, decree or order. For example, is suppose described ‘24 Chowringhee Road, Bhawanipur’. It would be clear to everybody what property was meant, and it cannot be seriously doubted that in stating that the property was in ‘Bhawanipur’, the parties had committed an ‘accidental slip or omission’. In such a case, I would not go to the extent of holding that the Court has no power to correct the judgment, decree or order which has repeated the mistake. In doing so, the Court need not correct the pleadings or the document but its own decision. In my opinion, it is not necessary in such a case to amend the pleadings or to rectify the deed, therefore, no question arises as to whether the Court has power to do so. It is, however, quite clear that such cases must be of rare occurrence, and the scope thereof is severely limited. The power the resolving of cannot be extended controversial points, and a decision as to what the parties intended or did not intent to do. Apart from this exceptional case, I hold that the Court cannot correct errors anterior to the proceedings before it. For such a purpose, the proper proceeding is by way of a suit under Section 31, Specific Relief Act. To this extent, I agree respectfully with the view enunciated by Gentle, C.J. in T.M. Ramakrishnan Chettiar Vrs. G. Radhakrishnan Chettiar, AIR 1948 Mad 13 and the view expressed by Young, J. in Shujaatmand Khan Vrs. Govind Behari, AIR 1934 All 100 (2). Applying these principles to to W.P.(C) No.18621 of 2025 Page 15 of 36 I think that the the facts of this case, rectification asked for is impossible. If there has been a mistake in the original agreement it is a mistake which is fundamental, and it is impossible without going into evidence, to decide as to what the parties meant. There are facts in favour of the contention put forward by either party and I cannot describe it as an error (if there is at all any error) as can be called ‘an accidental slip or omission’ as contemplated in Section 152. In any event, such slips or omissions cannot be rectified in proceedings under Section 152 or even under Section 151 of the Code.’ We, with respect, agree with the aforenoticed view. 22.