Tax Authorities Must Reconsider Invoice Duplication Case After Proving No Revenue Loss or Intentional Fraud Under GST Rules

HC found no actual revenue loss from inadvertent invoice duplication in GSTR 1. Despite technical non-compliance, the court set aside the tax liability order and directed respondent to reconsider the case, providing petitioner a personal hearing and issuing a fresh order within two months, recognizing the error was unintentional and no excess input tax credit was claimed.

---

---

Issues involved: Challenge to an order regarding mismatch between GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B returns.

Summary:
The petitioner, a registered person under GST enactments, filed GSTR 1 with an error of providing details for the same invoice multiple times. Upon intimation of discrepancies, petitioner clarified the error was inadvertent and correct details were in GSTR 3B. Certificates from purchasers confirmed they excluded duplicate invoices for availing input tax credit (ITC). The impugned order imposed tax liability despite no revenue loss.

The respondent argued that petitioner failed to rectify GSTR 1 within the prescribed time limit, hence the order was valid. However, petitioner's submissions and purchaser certificates indicated no excess ITC was claimed based on duplicate invoices.

The impugned order was set aside, remanding the matter for reconsideration. The court directed the respondent to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and issue a fresh order within two months.

---