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 Filing Dispute: Petitioner Granted Opportunity for GSTR-1 Entry Rectification with Mandatory Six-Week Review Process</h1> <h3>M/s Rajendra Agency Versus Union of India, Commissioner, Goods and Service Tax, Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Ward -II, Circle, Nagaur.</h3> HC ruled on GST filing dispute, directing respondent to review petitioner's representation for GSTR-1 entry rectification within six weeks. Court mandated ... Seeking rectification in GSTR-1 - respondents-GST Department did not take any action on the request of the petitioner-firm - HELD THAT:- It is opined that when the petitioner-firm has filed representation with a prayer for rectification in the GSTR -1, the respondent No.3 may considered the same. This writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.3 to consider and decide the representation (Annexure-1) filed by the petitioner-firm on 01.10.2022 strictly in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. Issues Involved:The petitioner-firm filed incorrect entries in GSTR-1 for the years 2019-20 and 2020-21, seeking rectification from the respondent-GST Department, which was not acted upon.Judgment Summary:Issue 1: Rectification of Incorrect Entries in GSTR-1The petitioner-firm approached the High Court with a grievance regarding incorrect entries in GSTR-1 for the years 2019-20 and 2020-21. Despite filing a representation for rectification, the respondent-GST Department did not take any action on the request.The petitioner's counsel cited a similar case in the Calcutta High Court where a writ petition was disposed of by directing the GST Department to consider rectifying errors in GSTR-1. The petitioner sought a similar direction from the Court.The respondent No.3 opposed the petitioner's prayer for rectification.After hearing both parties and reviewing the evidence, the Court directed the respondent No.3 to consider and decide the representation filed by the petitioner-firm on 01.10.2022 within six weeks. The respondent was also instructed to provide an opportunity for the petitioner-firm to be heard before making any decision on the representation.In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with a directive for the respondent No.3 to address the petitioner-firm's representation for rectification of incorrect entries in GSTR-1, ensuring a fair hearing and compliance with the law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
