2019 (8) TMI 1351 - HC - GST

High Court grants relief for rectifying errors in GSTR-3B returns

M/s. Panduranga Stone Crushers Versus The Union of India

The Andhra Pradesh High Court granted interim relief to the petitioner in a case concerning rectification of errors in GSTR-3B returns for the financial ... Rectification of mistake that has been crept in GSTR-3B - Whether the return in Form GSTR-3B is a return required to be filed under Section 39 of the CGST Act JGGST Act? - HELD THAT:- Prima facie case is made out and that as the issues raised in the writ petition require detailed examination, this is a fit case to grant the interim order. The petitioner is permitted to rectify GSTR 3B statements for the months of August and December, 2017 and January and February, 2018 manually subject to the outcome of the writ petition - petition allowed. Issues:Rectification of errors in GSTR-3B returns for specific months of a financial year under GST Act, entitlement to rectify mistakes under Section 39, interpretation of relevant rules, comparison with judicial precedents from Gujarat High Court and High Court of Kerala, consideration of revenue implications, and granting interim relief.Analysis:The judgment by the Andhra Pradesh High Court involved a dispute regarding the rectification of errors in GSTR-3B returns for the financial year 2017-18. The petitioner had inadvertently reported IGST input tax credit in the wrong column while filing returns. The petitioner sought rectification, arguing the absence of provisions preventing rectification under Section 39 of the GST Act. However, the Assistant Solicitor General contended that Section 39(3) of the GST Act allowed rectification as there were incorrect particulars mentioned, and the petitioner had not availed the opportunity to rectify the returns.The petitioner's counsel referenced a Gujarat High Court case questioning whether Form GSTR-3B was a return required under Section 39 of the CGST Act. The Gujarat High Court had highlighted discrepancies in notifications and held that a press release clarifying input tax credit deadlines was illegal. Additionally, a Kerala High Court case was cited where transfer of tax liability was permitted despite revenue objections, emphasizing the need for equitable treatment in tax matters. The petitioner argued that Section 39(9) of the CGST Act covers contingencies like under-declaration of tax but not clerical errors without revenue implications.After considering the submissions, the High Court found a prima facie case and granted interim relief to the petitioner. The court allowed the rectification of GSTR 3B statements for specific months manually, subject to the outcome of the writ petition. It was clarified that if the petitioner submitted rectified statements, the respondents were required to process them according to the established legal procedures. This decision balanced the petitioner's request for rectification with the legal provisions and judicial precedents cited during the proceedings.