Section 102 explained: this guide covers what it means, who it applies to, the step-by-step process, documents required, fees, due dates and penalties in India — so you can stay compliant with confidence and avoid costly mistakes.
A ruling contains an obvious error — a wrong figure, a misnamed notification, an omitted question. There is a short and specific route to fix it, and it is not an appeal.
Section 102: the Authority, the Appellate Authority or the National Appellate Authority may amend any order passed by it under s.98, s.101 or s.101C respectively, so as to rectify any error apparent on the face of the record, if such error is noticed on its own accord, or is brought to its notice by the concerned officer, the jurisdictional officer, the applicant, the appellant, the Authority or the Appellate Authority, within a period of six months from the date of the order. Proviso: no rectification which has the effect of enhancing the tax liability or reducing the amount of admissible input tax credit shall be made unless the applicant or the appellant has been given an opportunity of being heard.
"Error apparent on the face of the record"
The familiar standard, and a demanding one. It means an error that is obvious and self-evident from the record, requiring no elaborate argument to establish.
Within it:
- an arithmetical or typographical error;
- a wrong notification number or an incorrect statutory reference;
- an incorrect date or period;
- a question raised in the application that the ruling did not answer;
- an obvious factual mis-statement of what the application said;
- reliance on a provision that was not in force for the period in question.
Outside it:
- a different view of the law on the same facts;
- an argument the applicant now wishes had been made;
- a conclusion the applicant disagrees with, however strongly;
- anything requiring evidence or extended reasoning to demonstrate.
The line is between an error you can point at and a conclusion you must argue against. The second is an appeal under s.100, not a rectification. Appeal to the AAAR →
Who may raise it
The section names them:
- the Authority or Appellate Authority itself, on its own accord;
- the concerned officer;
- the jurisdictional officer;
- the applicant;
- the appellant;
- the Authority or the Appellate Authority — the words "appellant, the Authority or the Appellate Authority" were substituted for "or the appellant" by s.106 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019, effective from a date to be notified.
So the Authority whose ruling was appealed may itself bring an error in the appellate order to the Appellate Authority's notice — a route that exists because the Authority receives the appellate ruling under s.101(4) and Rule 107(d).
The six months
"Within a period of six months from the date of the order."
From the date of the order, not from communication — which is a shorter effective window than it first appears, since the certified copy under s.98(7) or s.101(4) arrives some time after.
No extension provision. Unlike s.100(2), which allows a further thirty days on sufficient cause, s.102 has no proviso extending the six months.
It applies to the Authority's own motion too. So a ruling is safe from rectification after six months, in either direction.
Practical step: on receiving a ruling, read it against the application immediately — question by question, figure by figure, reference by reference — and diarise the six months. An error spotted in month seven cannot be corrected.
The proviso: a hearing where it hurts
"No rectification which has the effect of enhancing the tax liability or reducing the amount of admissible input tax credit shall be made unless the applicant or the appellant has been given an opportunity of being heard."
Two triggers: enhancing tax liability, or reducing admissible input tax credit.
Where neither is engaged — a correction of a date, a citation, or a typographical error with no effect on the outcome — no hearing is required, and the amendment may be made directly.
Where either is engaged, the hearing is mandatory. At it, the arguments available are:
- the alleged error is not apparent on the face of the record, but a change of view — which is outside the section entirely;
- the six months has expired;
- the proposed amendment goes beyond correction and rewrites the ruling.
That third point matters. Section 102 permits amendment "so as to rectify any error apparent on the face of the record" — the power is confined to correcting the error, not to reconsidering the question.
Using rectification well
When it is the right tool:
- a question in the application was not answered;
- the ruling records the facts incorrectly in a way that will mislead an officer reading it;
- an obviously wrong notification or rule is cited;
- an arithmetical error appears in a valuation or credit computation.
When it is the wrong tool:
- you disagree with the conclusion — appeal under s.100 within thirty days;
- you want to introduce new facts — that is a new application, if the s.98(2) bar permits one;
- the ruling has become inapplicable because circumstances changed — that is s.103(2), which operates on its own. Section 103 →
And note the timing overlap. The appeal window under s.100(2) is thirty days (plus thirty). The rectification window is six months. A rectification application does not extend the appeal period — so where the ruling is both erroneous on its face and wrong in substance, the appeal must be filed within thirty days regardless, and the rectification pursued alongside it.
Key takeaways
- Section 102 corrects an error apparent on the face of the record, not a disagreement with the conclusion.
- It may be raised by the Authority itself, the concerned or jurisdictional officer, the applicant, the appellant, or the Authority or Appellate Authority.
- Six months from the date of the order, with no extension.
- A hearing is mandatory where the rectification enhances tax or reduces admissible credit.
- The power is to correct, not to reconsider.
- A rectification application does not extend the thirty-day appeal window under s.100.
Read next
- Section 100: Appeal to the AAAR, ARA-02 and ARA-03
- Section 104: When an Advance Ruling Becomes Void Ab Initio
- Section 103: Binding Only on the Applicant
- Section 102 of CGST Act 2017 — Rectification of Advance Ruling
Disclaimer: Positions stated as on 5 September 2026, based on the CGST Act as amended to 31 March 2026 (ICAI Bare Law, 12th edition). The references to the National Appellate Authority and section 101C in section 102 were inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 and are effective from a date to be notified.