2023 (12) TMI 513 - HC - GST

Tax Dealer Wins Right to Rectify GSTR-3B Form Errors, Enabling Input Tax Credit Classification Correction

Kerala HC allowed a tax dealer's petition to rectify GSTR-3B form mistakes, permitting correction of input tax credit classification between IGST, SGST, ... Rectification of assessment - treatment of representation as rectification application - GSTR-3B return correction - opportunity of hearing - writ of mandamus under Article 226Rectification of assessment - treatment of representation as rectification application - GSTR-3B return correction - opportunity of hearing - Whether the representation filed by the petitioner (Exts.P4 and P5) should be treated as a rectification application and decided by the 3rd respondent after affording opportunity of hearing. - HELD THAT: - The petitioner admitted errors in the GSTR-3B returns which, according to counsel, resulted in the impugned assessment order (Ext.P3). The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 (and Ext.P5) seeking correction/rectification of those mistakes. The learned Government Pleader raised no substantial objection to treating the representation as a rectification application. On these facts the High Court directed that the 3rd respondent shall consider Exts.P4 and P5 as a rectification application filed by the assessee and decide the same in accordance with law after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The Court specified an expeditious timeline for disposal, indicating the order should be passed preferably within two months. [Paras 5]Exts.P4 and P5 shall be treated as a rectification application and the 3rd respondent is directed to decide them in accordance with law after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, preferably within two months.Final Conclusion: Writ petition disposed by directing the 3rd respondent to treat Exts.P4 and P5 as a rectification application, hear the petitioner and pass appropriate orders expeditiously (preferably within two months). Issues involved: The issues involved in the judgment are related to rectification of mistakes in Form GSTR-3B, refund of IGST Input tax credit, reconsideration of assessment orders, and quashing of unjust and illegal orders.Rectification of mistakes in Form GSTR-3B: The petitioner, a registered dealer under the provisions of the KVAT Act and now under the provisions of the CGST/SGST Act, filed a writ petition seeking permission to rectify the mistake in Form GSTR-3B by accounting input tax credit as IGST instead of SGST and CGST credit. The petitioner submitted that errors were made in submitting the returns, leading to the passing of the assessment order. The petitioner made a representation for rectifying the mistakes, which the court directed the 3rd respondent to consider as a rectification application and pass necessary orders expeditiously after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.Refund of IGST Input tax credit: The petitioner also sought permission to refund IGST Input tax credit and adjust the same towards SGST and CGST liability. The learned Government Pleader did not object to this prayer, and the court disposed of the petition with a direction to consider the rectification application and pass necessary orders within a period of two months.Reconsideration of assessment orders: Additionally, the petitioner requested the court to direct the respondents to reconsider Exhibit.P3 or P6 by taking into account the evidences produced, especially highlighting that IGST credit and liability towards CGST and SGST are the same. The court did not specifically address this prayer in the judgment but directed the 3rd respondent to consider the rectification application and pass necessary orders expeditiously.Quashing of unjust and illegal orders: The petitioner also sought a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash Exhibits.P3 and P6 as unjust and illegal. The judgment did not explicitly address this prayer, as the focus was on the rectification application and passing necessary orders expeditiously.In conclusion, the High Court of Kerala disposed of the writ petition by directing the 3rd respondent to consider the rectification application filed by the petitioner and pass necessary orders expeditiously within a period of two months, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.