Facts of the Case:

In this case, the petitioner was a exporter under GST and was subjected to audit proceedings by the department, pursuant to which a notice was issued and an assessment order was passed determining liability towards tax, interest, and penalty. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was pending when the GST Amnesty Scheme, 2025 under Section 128A of the CGST Act was introduced, allowing waiver of interest and penalty for FY 2017–18 to 2019–20 upon payment of tax and withdrawal of appeal.

The petitioner complied with all conditions by paying the tax dues, withdrawing the appeal, and filing the requisite forms within the prescribed time. However, the application for waiver was rejected by order dated 29.09.2025 on the ground that the demand pertained solely to penalty. The petitioner contended that this classification was due to a clerical error in the summary order, whereas the original assessment clearly included tax and interest components as well.

Issue: Whether the benefit of the GST Amnesty Scheme under Section 128A of the CGST Act can be denied solely on the basis of an apparent clerical error in the summary assessment order, when the original assessment order clearly reflects demand towards tax, interest, and penalty.

Held that:

The Court observed that the classification of the entire demand under the “penalty” column in the summary proceedings was evidently a human/clerical error, which was apparent on the face of the record. In such circumstances, the authority ought not to have mechanically relied upon the summary assessment order while considering the petitioner’s application under the Amnesty Scheme.

The Court held that when the error is self-evident and ascertainable from the original records, it is incumbent upon the adjudicating authority to take note of the correct factual position and decide the matter accordingly. The authority cannot perpetuate an error by blindly relying on an incorrect summary, especially when such reliance leads to denial of substantive statutory benefits.

Rejecting the department’s contention regarding the necessity of prior rectification, the Court held that the petitioner cannot be compelled to undergo additional procedural formalities where the mistake is obvious and does not require elaborate adjudication. The authority, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 128A, is duty-bound to independently verify the correctness of the demand rather than adopt a hyper-technical approach.

The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the rejection order, holding that a clerical or human error in the summary assessment cannot defeat substantive rights under the Amnesty Scheme.

Case Name: M/s. BIG PEAT COMPANY, Rep. by its Partner, John Jose Versus The State Tax Officer, The Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST Appeals), Tirunelveli. Dated 23.03.2026

To read the complete judgement 2026 Taxo.online 794