Relief for taxpayer: GSTR-1 rectification allowed for wrong GSTIN entry due to human error, pending notification of forms

HC allowed the petition for rectification of a mistake in GSTR-1, where the supplier had erroneously entered the GSTIN of a purchaser in Uttar Pradesh instead of that of the purchaser in Andhra Pradesh. The Court held that, since Forms GSTR-1A and GSTR-2 are yet to be notified, the petitioner cannot be saddled with liability arising from a bona fide human error in return filing. The HC directed that the petitioner be permitted to correct the GSTIN details in the return, and accordingly allowed the petition.

---

---

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in GSTR-1 return regarding GST number of purchaser, availability of statutory Forms GSTR-2 and GSTR-1A, denial of credit due to mismatch in GST number, permission to rectify inadvertent errors in filing returns.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought a mandamus to rectify a mistake in the GSTR-1 return where the GST number of the purchaser in Uttar Pradesh was mentioned instead of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing, filed returns under the CGST Act. The issue was similar to a previous judgment by the same judge. The counter filed by respondents confirmed the error in the invoices. The absence of Forms GSTR-2 and GSTR-1A hindered error detection, and the petitioner missed the deadline for modification due to unawareness of the mistake.

The revenue acknowledged the absence of Forms GSTR-2 and 1A but denied credit due to the mismatch in GST numbers. The petitioner was informed of the error by the recipient seeking amendment and legal action. Referring to a previous case, the judge emphasized the need to allow correction of inadvertent errors to prevent legitimate credits from being denied. The judgment allowed the petitioner to resubmit correct details within a specified timeframe without costs.

In conclusion, due to the non-notification of Forms GSTR-1A and GSTR-2, the petitioner was not held liable for the genuine human error and was permitted to rectify it. The judgment directed the Assessing Officer to facilitate the amendment to GSTR-1 within eight weeks. Both respondents' counsels agreed that the order should be implemented by the Assessing Officer.

---