TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 729
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....une_LTU_505, Large Tax Prayers Unit-I, Cabin No.422, 4th Floor, GST Bhavan, Airport Road Yerwada, PUNE-411006 Tel. 26609032 [email protected] To. M/s. Star Engineers(I) Private Limited, 54/2,D-11 Block MIDC-Chinchwad, Pune-411019, Maharashtra, GSTN: 27AAHCS6334BIZI No:DCST /LTU-1 /E-506 /Star Engineers/ 27AAHCS6334BIZI/ 23-24/B-252 Pune DT.27/09/2023 Subject: Regarding Application for seeking approval to modify / amend From GSTR-1 for FY2021-22. Reference : Your application on dated 11/09/2023. _____________ With reference to the above subject, you have requested for correction in Form GSTR-1 of FY 2021-22 namely for the months of July 2021, November 2021 and January 2022 on account of human error committed by your Company wherein, inadvertently, GSTINs of "Ship to" parties were reported in GSTR-1 instead of "Bill to" party-Bajaj Auto Limited. From the evaluation of facts and supporting thereof, through there does not appear to be any loss of revenue to the Government exchequers, however, provisions under the GST Act prohibits any additional modifications or adjustments post the due date. Therefore, the request of the Company f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in Form GSTR-2B, as GSTIN of a third party was given instead of BAL. Consequently BAL debited the mismatched amount to the petitioner's account. 6. It is in such circumstances, the petitioner approached the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax by its letter dated 11 September 2023 interalia contending that the petitioner has fulfilled its tax obligation in relation to the supplies made to BAL during the financial year 2021-22, which indicated that all the required taxes associated with the transactions involving BAL have been appropriately and duly paid by the petitioner to the Government and that the petitioner had also complied all GST Regulations. It was contended that post identification of the inadvertent error made during filing of Form GSTR-1, petitioner has taken proactive steps and secured confirmation from the respective third party companies, confirming the non-availment of ITC at their end. Accordingly, it was contended that what had occurred was merely a procedural error at the petitioner's end and in fact, the petitioner is suffering a double prejudice as though the petitioner had deposited GST with the Government, the credit of payment is held up for want of reflection ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to be permitted. Accordingly, in such cases a relief was granted to the petitioner. It is, thus, Mr. Raichandani's submission that the prayer of the petitioner that it be permitted to amend or rectify the Form GSTR-1 for the period in question ought to be granted. 8. On the other hand, Ms. Vyas, learned Counsel for the Revenue while not disputing the factual matrix would submit that no fault can be found in the impugned communication as the provisions of the GST Act itself would not permit the State Tax Officer to accept the request as made by the petitioner for amendment / rectification of Form GSTR-1 which was filed by the petitioner for the period in question. Ms. Vyas has also fairly stated that if the request as made by the petitioner is to be accepted, there is no loss of revenue whatsoever to the public exchequer. 9. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record, there is much substance in the contention as urged on behalf of the petitioner. At the outset we are required to note that insofar as filing of GST returns are concerned, the provisions of Sections 37, 38 and 39 of the Central Goods and Services Tax / Maharashtra Goods and Service Tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....son who has been communicated the details under subsection (3) of section 38 or the details pertaining to inward supplies of Input Service Distributor under sub-section (4) of section 38, shall either accept or reject the details so communicated, on or before the seventeenth day, but not before the fifteenth day, of the month succeeding the tax period and the details furnished by him under sub-section (1) shall stand amended accordingly. (3) Any registered person, who has furnished the details under sub-section (1) for any tax period and which have remained unmatched under section 42 section 43, shall, upon discovery of any error or omission therein, rectify such error or omission in such manner as may be prescribed, and shall pay the tax and interest, if any, in case there is a short payment of tax on account of Such error or omission, in the return to be furnished for such tax period : Provided that no rectification of error or omission in respect of the details furnished under sub-Section (1) shall be allowed after furnishing of the return under section 39 for the month of September following the end of the financial year to which such details pertain, or furnishing of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 39. Furnishing of returns - (1) ... ... ... ... .. .. ... .. (8) Every registered person who is required to furnish a return under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall furnish a return for every tax period whether or not any supplies of goods or services or both have been made during such tax period. (9) 5[Where] any registered person after furnishing a return under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) or subsection (4) or sub-section (5) discovers any omission or incorrect particulars therein, other than as a result of scrutiny, audit, inspection or enforcement activity by the tax authorities, he shall rectify such omission or incorrect particulars in the return to be furnished for the month or quarter during which such omission or incorrect particulars 6[in such form and manner as may be prescribed], subject to payment of interest under this Act: Provided that no such rectification of any omission or incorrect particulars shall be allowed after the 7[thirtieth day of November] following 8[the end of the financial year to which such details pertain], or the actual date of furnishing of relevant annual return, whichever is earlier. (10) A ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....scading effect. This is necessarily required to be borne in mind when considering the cases of inadvertent human errors creeping into the filing of GST returns. 14. Applying such principles to the facts of the present case, in our opinion, the State Tax Officer had all materials before it which went to show that there was nothing illegal and / or that what had happened at the end of the petitioner was that the invoices generated by the petitioner under the bill-to-ship-to-model for delivery of goods to third party vendors of BAL of which input tax credit for the invoices in question, were not availed by BAL due to error of credit not being reflected in the GSTR-1, as the petitioner had mentioned GSTIN of third party instead of GSTIN of BAL. This is also accepted by the State Tax Officer in the impugned communication. 15. As a result of the above discussion, in our opinion, the State Tax officer ought to have granted the petitioner's request to rectify / amend the Form GSTR-1 for the period July 2021, November 2021 and January 2022, either through Online or manual means. 16. We also find that the petitioner's reliance on the decision as noted by us is quite apposite. In Sun Dye C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rm, but it was not allowed. It is in these circumstances, the Court considering the fact that in permitting the petitioner to rectify such error, there was no loss of revenue whatsoever to the department, that it was only about the ITC benefit which was to be given to the customer of the petitioner, failing which a prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. The Division Bench referring to the decision in Sun Dye Chem (supra) granted the prayer of the petitioner for setting aside the letter of rejection as impugned in the proceedings and permitting the petitioner to resubmit the corrected returns in Form - B2B under GSTR-1 for the period in question. 19. The Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in Mahalaxmi Infra Contract Ltd. (supra) has taken a similar view wherein the Division Bench after considering the rival contentions and the scheme of the legislation, allowed the petition considering the fact that there was no loss of revenue, if such rectification as prayed for by the petitioner was to be granted. 20. On the interpretation of the provisions as made by us and the common thread running through the decisions as noted above, it would lead us to observe that the GST re....