The Delhi High Court has refused to intervene under Article 226 of the Constitution in a challenge to a corrigendum that allegedly transformed the scope of a show cause notice issued under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, by grafting an entirely new financial year onto the original demand. A Division Bench comprising Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul held that the question of whether such a corrigendum constituted a legitimate typographical correction or an impermissible expansion of proceedings is inherently a factual inquiry — one that must be resolved through the statutory appellate machinery rather than through the writ court’s certiorari jurisdiction.
The dispute arose from proceedings initiated against Manpar Icon Technologies under Section 74 of the CGST Act, which governs demands in cases of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. The original show cause notice covered Financial Year 2018–19. A corrigendum was subsequently issued that introduced Financial Year 2019–20 into the scope of the notice. The adjudicating authority thereafter passed an order-in-original confirming a tax demand exceeding Rs 42 lakh. Manpar Icon Technologies, represented by Advocates Chinmaya Seth, A.K. Seth, and Palak Mathur, challenged the corrigendum, the show cause notice, and the final order before the High Court, arguing that what the Revenue characterised as a correction was, in substance, the initiation of entirely fresh proceedings for a separate financial year — proceedings that could not be sustained within the limitation framework of Section 74 and could not be dressed up as a rectification under Section 161 of the CGST Act.
The Revenue, represented by Standing Counsel Monica Benjamin with Advocate Nancy Jain, maintained that the corrigendum did nothing more than rectify a typographical error concerning the relevant tax period and introduced no new transaction or liability. The Revenue further pressed the availability of a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act as a complete answer to the petitioner’s grievance.
The Bench sided with the procedural objection. It observed that the CGST Act confers the statutory power to issue corrigenda, but the question of whether any particular corrigendum falls within the permissible boundaries of correction or strays into the territory of an impermissible expansion of scope is one that demands a close examination of the underlying factual record — an exercise the Court found incompatible with the limited certiorari jurisdiction available under Article 226. The Court further reasoned that mere disagreement with the conclusions reached by the adjudicating authority does not, standing alone, furnish a basis for bypassing the statutory remedy and invoking the writ court’s extraordinary jurisdiction. It pointed to Section 107 of the CGST Act, read with Rule 109A of the CGST Rules, as the express appellate avenue available to any person aggrieved by an order passed under Section 74, and found no cause to interfere. The Bench was careful to clarify that it had not examined or expressed any view on the merits of Manpar Icon Technologies’ substantive challenge, leaving those questions entirely open for the appellate forum.
The ruling underscores a recurring tension in indirect tax litigation under the GST regime: the boundary between a corrigendum that corrects a clerical error and one that substantively alters the scope of adjudication. For assessees confronted with corrigenda that appear to expand the taxable period, the decision signals that the High Court will not readily step in as a first-instance fact-finding body, even where the expansion is alleged to violate limitation provisions. The practical implication is clear — the statutory appellate route under Section 107, rather than writ jurisdiction, will remain the expected forum for contesting such disputes, unless the assessee can demonstrate that the case falls within one of the recognised exceptions to the alternative remedy doctrine, such as a jurisdictional error apparent on the face of the record or a violation of principles of natural justice that renders the appellate remedy illusory.