Court Orders Rectification of Filing Errors to Ensure Fair Refunds; Emphasizes Easy Correction Processes for Taxpayers.

The HC allowed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to submit a representation to the authorities for rectification of inadvertent errors in filing returns. The Court emphasized the necessity of facilitating corrections, either digitally or manually, to prevent undue hardships and ensure rightful disbursement of eligible refunds.

---

---

Issues:
1. Correction of inadvertent human error in filing returns.
2. Limitation period for rectification.
3. Input tax credit claim denial due to wrong GSTIN number.
4. Digital platform limitations on rectification.
5. Precedent of Jharkhand High Court on similar matter.
6. Facilitation of correction through digital or manual mode.
7. Possibility of business closure due to refund denial.

Issue 1: Correction of Inadvertent Human Error in Filing Returns
The petitioner, a Private Limited Company engaged in construction work, sought rectification of an inadvertent error in filing returns for assessment years 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21. The error involved showing the TDS number instead of the correct GST number of the awarder, leading to the denial of input tax credit. The petitioner explained the mistake and sought rectification for the earlier years similar to the rectification done for 2021-22.

Issue 2: Limitation Period for Rectification
The Department resisted the correction on grounds of limitation, citing the Act's provisions for claiming refunds within stipulated periods. The petitioner had not approached the authorities within the specified time for revising the returns, as argued by the Government Advocate and the ASG.

Issue 3: Input Tax Credit Claim Denial Due to Wrong GSTIN Number
The denial of input tax claim was solely due to the wrong mention of the GSTIN number, acknowledged as a bona fide human error. The IDA, the awarder who deducted and paid tax to the Department, confirmed the deductions made from the contract proceeds, supporting the petitioner's claim for input tax credit.

Issue 4: Digital Platform Limitations on Rectification
The Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court addressed a similar matter involving an amendment to GSTR-1, emphasizing the need for correction without causing revenue prejudice. The reliance on digital modes for expeditious proceedings should not foreclose human intervention when necessary for rectification, ensuring smooth business processes and revenue collection.

Issue 5: Precedent of Jharkhand High Court on Similar Matter
The judgment referred to a Jharkhand High Court case where correction was facilitated for a wrong GSTIN number in invoices, underscoring the importance of rectification to prevent business disruptions and revenue loss.

Issue 6: Facilitation of Correction Through Digital or Manual Mode
The Court directed the petitioner to make a representation to the authorities, following the Jharkhand High Court's approach to facilitate rectification either through the digital portal or manual mode, ensuring the correction of the error caused by human oversight.

Issue 7: Possibility of Business Closure Due to Refund Denial
Acknowledging the potential business impact of refund denial on the petitioner's company, the Court emphasized the need to prevent business disruption and ensure the rightful disbursement of eligible refunds to avoid adverse consequences like business closure.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to represent to the authorities for rectification, emphasizing the importance of facilitating corrections to prevent undue hardships on businesses due to inadvertent errors in filing returns.

---