2022 (7) TMI 604 - HC - GST

Contractor Seeks Mandamus to Fix GSTR-1 Errors Leading to Recipient's Short Payment Under GST Rules

T.M.C. – HI - TECH. Versus Assistant Commissioner State GST, Cooch Behar Charge & Ors.

A general works contractor sought mandamus to rectify errors in GSTR-1 forms for November 2018 and August 2019, which caused incorrect classification of ... Seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to command the respondents - permission for rectification and / or correction of the GSTR – 1 form either manually or through portal - HELD THAT:- Application is disposed of by directing the Assistant Commissioner State GST, Cooch Behar Charge being the respondent no.1 herein to consider the representation dated November 12, 2021 which is annexed as Annexure “P/4 at page 60 of the writ petition and to dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and / or its authorized representative and to communicate the same to the petitioner. Issues:Prayer for rectification of GSTR-1 form through mandamus.Analysis:The petitioner, a general works contractor, sought a writ of mandamus to rectify errors in the GSTR-1 form submitted online for the months of November 2018 and August 2019. The errors led to the recipient making a short payment due to incorrect classification of outward supplies. Despite the petitioner's representation to the Assistant Commissioner State GST, no decision was communicated. The petitioner's counsel referred to a previous judgment and requested permission to submit fresh GSTR-1 returns.The Additional Government Pleader, representing the state, acknowledged the lack of a decision on the petitioner's representation and agreed that a direction should be given to address the petitioner's request. Consequently, the court disposed of the petition by directing the Assistant Commissioner State GST to consider the petitioner's representation, provide a reasoned order after a hearing, and communicate the decision to the petitioner. The petitioner was granted the opportunity to raise factual and legal issues during the hearing and rely on court decisions. The respondent was mandated to complete the process within four weeks, with no costs imposed.This judgment highlights the importance of rectifying errors in tax returns promptly and the obligation of authorities to address such requests in a timely manner. It underscores the significance of providing a fair hearing to petitioners and ensuring compliance with legal formalities for expeditious resolution.