TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
21 Jun 2025
Introduction
The Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, while streamlining indirect taxation in India, does not provide an explicit revision mechanism for GST returns. Given that human and clerical errors are inevitable, this rigid framework often leads to unintended hardships for taxpayers. While the GST authorities may legally reject rectification requests on technical grounds, such an approach contradicts the principles of equity and fairness that underpin tax administration.
Several High Courts have recognized this imbalance and ruled in favor of taxpayers, emphasizing that genuine mistakes should not deprive them of legitimate claims, especially when there is no loss of revenue to the exchequer. This article examines key judicial precedents where courts have upheld the right to rectify GST returns, ensuring justice over procedural technicalities.
Judicial Precedents Supporting Rectification
1. M/S. VIJAYKUMAR BHOGILAL VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - 2024 (12) TMI 1399 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
The petitioner had made errors in GSTR-3B for FY 2018-19. The Gujarat High Court remanded the matter to the assessing authority, permitting the petitioner to apply for Input Tax Credit (ITC) entitlement by 30-Nov-2021. The court directed the officer to pass a fresh order after considering the application under Sections 16(5) and 16(6) of the CGST Act, reinforcing that inadvertent errors should not lead to irreversible consequences.
Here, the assessee had wrongly claimed IGST credit under CGST and SGST in GSTR-3B. The Kerala High Court directed the revenue authorities to expeditiously consider the rectification application and restrained them from taking coercive action for the wrongly assessed tax.
The assessee mistakenly claimed entire IGST credit under CGST/SGST instead of IGST. The court held that the rectification application must be considered, and a necessary order should be passed, recognizing that such errors do not indicate malafide intent.
A clerical error in GSTR-1 led to the denial of ITC to the recipient. The Bombay High Court allowed rectification, noting that no revenue loss had occurred. The judgment emphasized that genuine errors should not override substantive claims, prioritizing fairness over technicalities.
The assessee had failed to disclose certain sales invoices in GSTR-1, which consequently did not reflect in the recipient’s GSTR-2A, denying them ITC. The court permitted rectification, holding that inadvertent omissions should not prejudice taxpayers.
The assessee had mistakenly entered an incorrect GSTIN of its customer in GSTR-1. Since the tax had already been paid and there was no revenue loss, the court allowed rectification, underscoring that hyper-technical rejections defeat justice.
The department had rejected the assessee’s request to shift ITC from one head to another in GSTR-3B. The Madras High Court ruled that the assessee has a right to rectify mistakes under Section 161 and should be permitted to file a rectification application.
Conclusion: The Need for a Pragmatic Approach
The consistent judicial trend indicates that courts are inclined to allow rectifications where errors are bona fide and do not cause revenue loss. The GST law, while robust, must incorporate a formal revision mechanism to prevent unnecessary litigation and uphold fairness.
Tax authorities should adopt a pragmatic approach, distinguishing between genuine errors and deliberate evasion. Until legislative amendments are introduced, taxpayers must rely on judicial remedies to correct inadvertent mistakes, reinforcing that the spirit of justice must prevail over procedural rigidity
-----
Abhishek Raja Ram
9810638155