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>Madras HC allows petitioner to rectify uploaded GSTR-1 statements for multiple periods following Deepa Traders precedent</h1> <h3>M/s. Akshaya Building Solution, Represented by its Partner, Mr. K. Senthilkumar Versus The Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Coimbatore – IV Division, Coimbatore</h3> The Madras HC allowed the petitioner to rectify uploaded GSTR-1 statements for August 2017, November 2017, December 2017, and January 2018 periods ... Rectification of uploaded GSTR-1 statement in GST portal for the periods August 2017, November 2017, December 2017 and January 2018 which involves Input Tax Credit - HELD THAT:- This Court in similar case in DEEPA TRADERS VERSUS PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU, SUPERINTENDENT OF GST, CENTRAL EXCISE, COIMBATORE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX NETWORK (GSTN), NEW DELHI [2023 (3) TMI 628 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has allowed the petitioner to file the corrected GSTR-1 statement and upload the rectified GSTR-1 in GST portal. By following the same, this Court also directs the respondent to permit the petitioner to upload the rectified GSTR-1 statement within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition disposed off. Issues involved:The writ petition challenges an order seeking permission to rectify GSTR-1 statements for specific periods involving Input Tax Credit.Details of the judgment:The petitioner made an inadvertent error in filing GSTR-1 statements for certain periods, leading to the need for rectification. The petitioner was unable to rectify within the extended time period due to lack of awareness of a relevant notification. The respondent argued that opportunities for correction were provided but not utilized by the petitioner. The petitioner claimed ignorance of the notification and submitted a representation, which was rejected by the respondent through the impugned order.Court's analysis:The court noted the mistake made by the petitioner and their inability to avail rectification opportunities due to lack of notification awareness. The court referred to a previous case where a similar petitioner was allowed to rectify GSTR-1 statements, emphasizing the importance of rectification in cases of inadvertent errors without malafides.Legal provisions considered:The court referred to Section 37 of the Act regarding rectification of errors in submitted details and the time frame for such rectification. It highlighted the importance of allowing rectification where errors are inadvertent and not deliberate, ensuring proper reporting of turnover and input tax credit.Decision and directions:In line with previous decisions and considering the circumstances, the court directed the respondent to permit the petitioner to upload the rectified GSTR-1 statement within a specified time frame. The court emphasized the need to enable rectification for genuine errors and ensure proper reporting of tax-related details.Conclusion:The writ petition was disposed of with the direction for rectification of GSTR-1 statements within specified time frames, emphasizing the importance of allowing rectification for inadvertent errors without attributing malafides to the assessee.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
