TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 392
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess of manufacture and sale of passenger car tyres with a manufacturing facility in the State of Haryana. Following enactment of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (briefly, 'the CGST Act' hereinafter) and the related laws, petitioner got itself registered under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime in the State of Telangana. 4. Petitioner has been submitting its GST returns timely. During the period from January, 2018 to August, 2018 it had shown supplies to one of its distributors M/s. Bade Miyan Wheels. However, in the GSTR-1 form submitted by the petitioner for the aforesaid period, the details of the distributor were wrongly mentioned. It was a bona fide mistake whereby the name of the distributor was mentioned as M/s. Hyderabad Service Station instead of M/s. Bade Miyan Wheels. Because of the aforesaid error, the distributor - M/s. Bade Miyan Wheels, is not able to utilise the input tax credit for the said purpose which is being reflected in the GSTR-2A forms of M/s.Hyderabad Service Station. Because of the above, the distributor had not paid amount due to the petitioner equivalent to the input tax credit because of the wrong entity which would be to the tune o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to go through the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India (supra). List as part-heard matter high on board on 31.10.2022." 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had represented before the respondents for rectification of omission/incorrect particulars. However, the same was not considered by the authorities. It is under such circumstances that the present writ petition came to be filed. She has distinguished the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharti Airtel Ltd., (supra) and instead submits that her case is squarely covered by the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Siddharth Enterprises v. Nodal Officer 2019 (29) G.S.T.L. 664 (Guj.). She has also placed reliance on a Single Bench decision of the Madras High Court in M/s. SUN DYE CHEM v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (W.P.No.29676 of 2019, decided on 06.10.2020). 8. On the other hand, Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned counsel for respondent No.6 has referred to sub-section (9) of Section 39 of the CGST Act and submits that legislature has consciously prescribed the limitation period to enable a taxable person to claim rectification ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rectification could be carried out after the due date for furnishing of return up to the following month of September. 12. Insofar the Gujarat High Court decision in Siddharth Enterprises (supra) is concerned, there is no dispute to the proposition that denial of credit of tax/duty paid under existing enactments would amount to violation of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India. Unutilized credit is a vested right and property in terms of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Question is whether such right can be exercised at any given point of time or would stand extinguished after the limitation provided by the statute itself. The said question has to be examined in the light of the petitioner furnishing incorrect particulars while filing GSTR-1 form. 13. Insofar decision of the Madras High Court in M/s. SUN DYE CHEM (supra) is concerned, we find from a deliberation thereon that Madras High Court proceeded on the basis that the consequential GSTR-2A form rectifying such omission/incorrect particulars was yet to be notified. Further, learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court did not examine the limitation introduced by the statute under sub-section (9) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n express mechanism provided by Section 39(9) read with Rule 61, it was not open to the High Court to proceed on the assumption that the only remedy that can enable the assessee to enjoy the benefit of the seamless utilization of the input tax credit is by way of rectification of its return submitted in Form GSTR-3B for the relevant period in which the error had occurred. Any unilateral change in such return as per the present dispensation, would have cascading effect on the recipients and suppliers associated with the concerned transactions. There would be complete uncertainty and no finality could ever be attached to the self-assessment return filed electronically. We agree with the submission of the appellant that any indulgence shown contrary to the statutory mandate would not only be an illegality but in reality, would simply lead to chaotic situation and collapse of tax administration of Union, States and Union Territories. Resultantly, assessee cannot be permitted to unilaterally carry out rectification of his returns submitted electronically in Form GSTR-3B, which inevitably would affect the obligations and liabilities of other stakeholders, because of the cascading effect ....