Assessment proceedings, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds
Section 160, CGST Act
Straight from CBIC
Official source, not a summary of a summary
Full text included
Read the exact words of the law yourself
Amendment history
See what changed, and when
Free, always
No login, no paywall, no book to buy
In one line
Section 160 provides that an assessment/order is not invalid merely for a mistake/defect/omission if it is in substance in conformity with the Act, and bars challenge to notice service if the person acted on it.
What this means in practice
The parts that actually decide cases — the things a practitioner checks first.
A mistake, defect or omission in a notice or order does not invalidate it if it is in substance in conformity with the Act – so a typographical error is not a ground, while a jurisdictional defect or absence of hearing still is.
How this provision is built
The skeleton, clause by clause — useful when a notice cites a specific sub-clause.
The exact words of the law
1,109 characters, uneditedReproduced from the CBIC text. We explain it above — but you should always be able to read it yourself.
Read the full provision+
(1) No assessment, re-assessment, adjudication, review, revision, appeal, rectification, notice, summons or other proceedings done, accepted, made, issued, initiated, or purported to have been done, accepted, made, issued, initiated in pursuance of any of the provisions of this Act shall be invalid or deemed to be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission therein, if such assessment, re-assessment, adjudication, review, revision, appeal, rectification, notice, summons or other proceedings are in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intents, purposes and requirements of this Act or any existing law.
(2) The service of any notice, order or communication shall not be called in question, if the notice, order or communication, as the case may be, has already been acted upon by the person to whom it is issued or where such service has not been called in question at or in the earlier proceedings commenced, continued or finalised pursuant to such notice, order or communication.
High Court cases on this section
Judgments in our index that cite this provision. Being listed does not make a case good law — it may have been appealed or distinguished since. Read it before relying on it.
M/s.leela Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Read the judgment PDF →
M/s.Vasudeva Reddy v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Read the judgment PDF →
M/s.Gee Kay Steel Corporation, v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST),
Read the judgment PDF →
M/s. Sita Devi Vundavalli v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Read the judgment PDF →
M/s.Srinivasa Automotives v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Read the judgment PDF →
M/s. Golechha And Sons, v. The State Tax officer 2,
Read the judgment PDF →
M/s. Vin Plast, v. Assistant Commissioner (ST),
Read the judgment PDF →
M/s. Dura Plast Industries v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Read the judgment PDF →
63 more on record. Search all GST case law →
What changed, and when
The amendment trail, newest first — because the version that applies to your case depends on the period.
2017-07-01 · Commenced
Provision as originally enacted in the CGST Act, 2017 (Act 12 of 2017) and brought into force w.e.f. 01-07-2017.
Where this comes from
Text reproduced from the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, as available on 2026-09-05. The explanation and practice notes above are GSTZone’s own, written for this hub. If you spot anything out of date, tell us and we’ll fix it — this hub is checked daily against CBIC.
Reading is free. Getting it wrong isn’t.
Does this apply to your case, or not?
Reading the section is one thing. Knowing whether it bites on your facts, and what it costs if it does, is another. Send us the situation – we will tell you straight, and only take it on if we can genuinely help.
6+ years · 2,500+ GST registrations filed · Bhopal, serving all of India