TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 628
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r is for a mandamus directing the respondents to enable the petitioner to rectify clerical errors in the details uploaded by it in Form GSTR -1 for the period 2017-18 and cause amendment of the Forms. 2. The petitioner has, in respect of the returns for a few months during the period 2017-18, admittedly, committed certain errors. The errors are of following nature. i) Recipients GSTIN/name has been wrongly mentioned. ii) The invoice number/date have been wrongly mentioned. iii) Supply details were correctly supplied in GSTR 3 and tax duly remitted. However, some of the invoice wise details have been omitted to be reported in Form GSTR 1. iv) IGST was inadvertantly remitted under the heads SGST and CGST....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Writ Petition, have not really been disputed. 7. Mr.Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would very fairly not raise any dispute on the sequence of events as set out above. He would however argue that there is no mechanism available as on date to issue mandamus as sought for. 8. In this regard, he draws attention to the provisions of Section 37 of the Act coming under Chapter IX of the Act under the head 'Returns' - Furnishing details of outside suppliers. The two provisos under Section 37(3) deal with rectification of details, and set out a categoric time frame within which rectification must be effected. 9. For clarity, Section 37(3) and the two provisos thereunder are extracted be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he fact remains that this Court has taken a view in very similar circumstances as in the present case, in the case of Sun Dye Chem V. Assistant Commissioner (2021 (44) GSTL 358) reiterated in Pentacle Plant Machineries Pvt. Ltd. V. Office of the GST Council, New Delhi (2021 (52) GSTL 129) to the effect that those petitioners must be permitted the benefit of rectification of errors where there is no malafides attributed to the assessee. The errors committed are clearly inadvertant and, the rectification would, in fact, enable proper reporting of the turnover and input tax credit to enable claims to be made in an appropriate fasion by the petitioner and connected assessees. 12. The aforesaid decisions of this Court have been accepted by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... denied solely on account of the mismatch in GSTR number. It is only on 15.07.2019 when the recipient notified the petitioner of the rejection of the credit, seeking amendment of the return, and threatening legal action, that the petition came to be aware of the mismatch. 7. In Sun Dye Chem (supra), the error related to distribution of credit as between IGST/CGST/SGST, which posed a difficulty to the recipient in the matter of availment. I have taken a view noticing that the error arose out of inadvertence, that such bonafide mistakes must be permitted to be corrected, stating at paragraphs 17 to 21 as follows: 17. A registered person who files a return under Section 39(1) involving intra-State outward supply is to indicat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioner's and the supplier's returns might well have been noticed and appropriate and timely action taken. The error was noticed only later when the petitioners' customers brought the same to the attention of the petitioner. 20. In the absence of an enabling mechanism, I am of the view that assessees should not be prejudiced from availing credit that they are otherwise legitimately entitled to. The error committed by the petitioner is an inadvertent human error and the petitioner should be in a position to rectify the same, particularly in the absence of an effective, enabling mechanism under statute. 21. This writ petition is allowed and the impugned order set aside. The petitioner is permitted to resubmit the annexures....