GST Rectification Timeline Under Notification No. 22/2024-CT Is Merely Directory, Holds Uttarakhand High Court

Case Overview

Court: Uttarakhand High Court
Case: Nand Kishore Garg Vs Assistant Commissioner (Writ Petition (M/B) No. 704 of 2026)
Date of Order: 09.09.2026

The Uttarakhand High Court, in this significant ruling, set aside a rejection order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division, Rudrapur, which had declined to entertain a rectification application on the ground that the three-month timeline prescribed under Section 161 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Notification No. 22/2024-CT dated 08.10.2024 had already lapsed. The Court held that the said timeline operates as a directive standard of conduct — an endeavour-based obligation — and its expiry neither strips the authority of its jurisdiction nor renders it functus officio.

Background and Factual Matrix

The assessee, Nand Kishore Garg, was aggrieved by an Order-in-Original dated 29.08.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division, Rudrapur. In response, the assessee filed a rectification application on 17.01.2025, which was squarely within the extended timeline permitted under Notification No. 22/2024-CT dated 08.10.2024.

Despite the timely filing, the competent authority did not act upon the rectification application for a prolonged period. This prompted the assessee to approach the Uttarakhand High Court by way of Writ Petition (M/B) No. 331 of 2026 — Nand Kishore Garg Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax — which was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of the Court on 05.05.2026. The Coordinate Bench directed the concerned authority to decide the rectification application within eight weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of that order.

Notwithstanding this clear judicial direction, the Assistant Commissioner proceeded to reject the rectification application vide order dated 30.06.2026, without examining its merits at all.

Grounds of Rejection by the Authority

The impugned order dated 30.06.2026 recorded its reasoning in paragraphs 6.7, 7, and 8. The relevant extract from the order reads as follows: