Section 113(3) of CGST Act, 2017 contains provision for rectification of order by the GSTAT . There are two commas placed in the provision.
-The first appears after the words “may amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1) so as to rectify any error apparent on the face of the record”.
-The second appears after the words “if such error is noticed by it on its own accord”.
-The last part of the provision is followed by a full stop.
G.P. Singh “Principles of Statutory Interpretation” at 191 and 192 of the 14th Edition provides-
“An illustration of the aid derived from punctuation may be furnished from the case of Mohd. Shabbir v State of Maharashtra (AIR 1979 SC 564, p 565), where section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 came up for construction. By this section whoever ‘manufactures for sale, sells, stocks or exhibits for sale or distributes’ a drug without a licence, is liable for punishment. In holding that mere stocking is not an offence within the section, the Supreme Court pointed out the presence of comma after ‘manufactures for sale’ and ‘sells’ and absence of any comma after ‘stocks’. It was, therefore, held that only stocking for sale could amount to offence and not mere stocking. For another example of the use of punctuation, reference may be made to MK Salpekar (Dr) v Sunil Kumar Shamsunder Chaudhari AIR 1988 SC 1841, where the court construed clause 13(3)(v) of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order. This provision permits ejectment of a tenant on the ground that ‘the tenant has secured alternative accommodation, or has left the area for a continuous period of four months and does not reasonably need the house’. In holding that the requirement that the tenant ‘does not reasonably need the house’ has no application when he ‘has secured alternative accommodation’ the court referred and relied upon the punctuation comma after the words ‘alternative accommodation’.”
Book: GST Made Easy – Answer to all Your Queries on GST – Taxmann, by CA (Dr.) Arpit Haldia
Applying the above principle in Section 113, wherein comma is placed after “apparent on the face of the record“, and “on its own accord”, therefore expression “within a period of three months from the date of the order” appears to qualify the phrase “is brought to its notice” by either of the parties to the appeal. It may therefore be contended that the statutory requirement is satisfied if the alleged error apparent on the face of the record is brought to the notice of the Appellate Tribunal within three months from the date of the order.
Another aspect of Section 113(3) merits consideration is that the provision refers to “such error”, therefore, limitation appears to be linked to the error being brought to notice. After all, the legislature chose to qualify the error, not the order.
Interesting time ahead..
Share this content: