TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>GST return rectification allowed for innocent errors in wrong columns during first financial year</h1> <h3>M/s. Orient Traders Versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT) -3, Joint Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes Bengaluru</h3> Karnataka HC allowed petitioner to rectify GST returns for July 2017 and March 2018 where figures were entered in wrong columns during GST's first ... Seeking permission to rectify the GST returns filed for the months of July, 2017 and March, 2018 - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the petitioner appears to have entered certain figures in the wrong column of his GSTR 3-B returns for the months of July 2017 and March 2018 i.e,, during the very first financial year after the introduction of GST. The copies of the returns submitted / filed by the petitioner clearly demonstrate and evidence the innocuousness of the errors committed by the petitioner. In the impugned show cause notice, the Revenue has proposed to deny the ITC claimed by the petitioner, which will undoubtedly lead to a serious revenue loss, unlike in the case of UNION OF INDIA VERSUS BHARTI AIRTEL LTD. & ORS. [2021 (11) TMI 109 - SUPREME COURT], where ITC availment was merely postponed as a result of the judgment. It is therefore clear that no reliance can be placed upon the said judgment by the respondents as sought to be contended by them. In the instant case, the respondents have, in the absence of a prescribed GSTR 2-A for the relevant tax periods referred to the IGST import figures reflected in the ICE GATE portal of the Customs Department for all the months except those in which the errors have been committed. This clearly indicates that the respondents are aware of the actual figures and also that there is an error committed by the petitioner, but has chosen to selectively ignore the IGST import amounts reflected in the ICE GATE portal for the tax periods in dispute, which is yet another circumstance to uphold the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled for the limited relief of being permitted to make the necessary changes to its GSTR 3-B returns for the months of July 2017 and March 2018, particularly, since doing so would not cause any prejudice to the respondents-Revenue nor would it upset the chain of credit under the GST scheme and liberty is to be reserved in favour of the revenue to proceed with the impugned show cause notice - petition allowed in part. Issues:1. Rectification of GST returns for specific months.2. Validity of audit report and show cause notice.3. Interpretation of Section 39(9) of the CGST/KGST Act.4. Application of recent judgment on revising returns.5. Consideration of inadvertent errors in GST filings.Analysis:Issue 1: Rectification of GST returns for specific monthsThe petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus to rectify GST returns for July 2017 and March 2018 due to inadvertent errors in claiming Input Tax Credit (ITC). The errors resulted in a mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A forms, leading to a proposal by the 1st respondent to disallow the ITC accrued to the petitioner. The petitioner's request to rectify these errors was initially rejected, prompting the petition to the Court.Issue 2: Validity of audit report and show cause noticeThe audit report highlighted errors in ITC claims made by the petitioner, leading to a show cause notice proposing to disallow the disputed amount of ITC. The petitioner contended that the errors were made during the initial stages of the GST regime and were bona fide. The Court considered the material on record and the petitioner's submissions regarding the inadvertent nature of the errors.Issue 3: Interpretation of Section 39(9) of the CGST/KGST ActThe respondents argued that Section 39(9) prohibits rectification of returns beyond a statutory period. They relied on a recent Apex Court judgment to support their contention. However, the Court differentiated the present case from the cited judgment, emphasizing that allowing rectification in this case would not lead to a cascading effect on the GST chain.Issue 4: Application of recent judgment on revising returnsThe Court distinguished the facts of the present case from the judgment cited by the respondents, as the denial of ITC in this case would result in a significant revenue loss. The Court emphasized that the petitioner's request to shift the ITC already claimed would not disrupt the GST credit chain and would not lead to cascading effects.Issue 5: Consideration of inadvertent errors in GST filingsThe Court acknowledged the challenges faced by dealers during the initial implementation of GST and recognized the inadvertent errors made by the petitioner in filing returns. It noted that the errors were innocuous and bona fide, particularly given the transition to a new tax regime. The Court directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to rectify the errors in the GST returns for the specified months.In conclusion, the Court partly allowed the petition, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to correct the GSTR-3B returns for the relevant months. The Court emphasized that the order was specific to the circumstances of the case and should not be considered a precedent for future cases.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
