2025 (8) TMI 782 - HC - GST

HC remands case for fresh review of rectification on erroneous HSN code in GSTR-9 under GST rules

The HC set aside the impugned orders rejecting the rectification application for an erroneous HSN code in the GSTR-9 return and remitted the matter to the ... Rejection of application for rectification of a mistake - while filing the return in Form GSTR-9, the HSN Code was erroneously mentioned as '38245010' instead of '25232930' - HELD THAT:- The order passed by the second respondent under Section 161 of the TNGST/CGST Act, 2017, found fault with the petitioner on the ground that discrepancies were observed based on the statutory returns filed by the petitioner and the input tax credit (ITC) data available from the seller's GSTR-1, which is reflected in GSTR-2A and auto-populated on the petitioner's dashboard. While the rejection of the rectification application cannot be faulted per se, the fact remains that the petitioner appears to have committed a genuine mistake. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have submitted the relevant documents to the respondents prior to the issuance of the assessment order. Considering the fact that the petitioner is an authorized dealer of India Cements Limited and was engaged in the business of trading cement, it is inclined to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter back to the respondents for fresh consideration on merits - petition disposed off by way of remand. The petitioner challenged the Assessment Order dated 30.08.2024 and the subsequent order under Section 161 of the TNGST/CGST Act, 2017, which rejected the application for rectification of a mistake. The petitioner erroneously reported the HSN Code as '38245010' instead of the correct '25232930' in Form GSTR-9, consistent with supplier invoices. The authorities rejected rectification based on discrepancies between the petitioner's statutory returns and input tax credit (ITC) data from the seller's GSTR-1 and GSTR-2A, noting the absence of supporting documents and failure to submit necessary evidence before the assessment order. While the rejection of rectification was not per se improper, the Court recognized the petitioner's error as genuine and emphasized the petitioner's failure to provide relevant documents timely. Given the petitioner's status as an authorized dealer of India Cements Limited engaged in cement trading, the Court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter for fresh consideration on merits. The respondents were directed to pass a reasoned order after affording the petitioner an opportunity to submit all necessary documents substantiating the purchases and sales. The fresh order was to be passed within three months of receipt of the judgment. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs.