TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1886
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tax paid by the petitioner notwithstanding the time limit prescribed in Section 16(4) of the CGST Act. b) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble High Court may think fit including the cost of this writ petition." 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to oversight and inadvertence, there was mismatch/discrepancy between the address shown in the invoice of the addressee at Annexure-C, which shows the address of the addressee/invoice as Uttar Pradesh, while in Form GSTR-1, it is inadvertently shown as Haryana, which is erroneous and request of the petitioner for permission to correct the same having not been considered by the respondent, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the following judgments: i) M/s. Sun Dye Chem Vs. The Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner of State Tax - WP No.29676....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....183/15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022 in order to point out that the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent would be entitled to the benefit of the directions issued in the said Circular with regard to the errors committed in the Invoices and the relevant forms of both the petitioner and 5th respondent and as such, the present petition deserves to be disposed of in terms of the said Circular. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents- revenue submits that the said Circular is not applicable insofar as the petitioner and 5th respondent are concerned and that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to extract the said Circular, which reads as under:- Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST F. No. CBIC-20001/2/2022 - GST Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs GST Policy Wing ***** New Delhi, Dated the 27th December, 2022 To, The Principal Chief Commissioners/ Chief Commissioners/ Principal Commissioners/ Commissioners of Central Tax (All)/ The Pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....during FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19. 3. In order to ensure uniformity in the implementation of the provisions of the law across the field formations, the Board, in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 168(1) of the CGST Act, hereby clarifies as follows; Sl No. Scenario Clarification a Where the supplier has failed to file FORM GSTR-1 for a tax period but has filed the return in FORM GSTR-3B for said tax period, due to which the supplies made in the said tax period do not get reflected in FORM GSTR- 2A of the recipients. In such cases, the difference in ITC claimed by the registered person in his return in FORM GSTR- 3B and that available in FORM GSTR-2A may be handled by following the procedure provided in para 4 below. b Where the supplier has filed FORM GSTR-1 as well as return in FORM GSTR-3B for a tax period, but has failed to report a particular supply in FORM GSTR-1, due to which the said supply does not get reflected in FORM GSTR- 2A of the recipient. In such cases, the difference in ITC claimed by the registered person in his return in FORM GSTR- 3B and that available in FORM GSTR-2A may be handled by following the procedure provid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r section 18 of CGST Act and also whether the said input tax credit has been availed within the time period specified under sub-section (4) of section 16 of CGST Act. 4.1 In order to verify the condition of clause (c) of sub- section (2) of Section 16 of CGST Act that tax on the said supply has been paid by the supplier, the following action may be taken by the proper officer: 4.1.1 In case, where difference between the ITC claimed in FORM GSTR-3B and that available in FORM GSTR 2A of the registered person in respect of a supplier for the said financial year exceeds Rs 5 lakh, the proper officer shall ask the registered person to produce a certificate for the concerned supplier from the Chartered Accountant (CA) or the Cost Accountant (CMA), certifying that supplies in respect of the said invoices of supplier have actually been made by the supplier to the said registered person and the tax on such supplies has been paid by the said supplier in his return in FORM GSTR 3B. Certificate issued by CA or CMA shall contain UDIN. UDIN of the certificate issued by CAs can be verified from ICAI website https://udin.icai.org/search-udin and that issued by CMAs can be verifie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd legal entity from the 5th respondent herein. Under these circumstances, having regard to the language employed in the Circular, which contemplates rectification of the bonafide and inadvertent mistakes committed by the persons at the time of filing of Forms and submitting Returns, in the peculiar and special facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am of the considered opinion that the error committed by the petitioner in showing the wrong GSTIN number in the Invoices which was carried forward in the relevant Forms as that of ABB India Limited instead of the 5th respondent i.e., M/s. ABB Global Industries and Services Private Limited, is clearly a bonafide error, which has occurred due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, sufficient cause and consequently, the aforesaid Circular would be directly and squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. 7. A perusal of the aforesaid Circular also indicates that the procedure to be followed in such cases has been prescribed at paragraph-4. In addition to the Circular, the petitioner has also filed an Affidavit satisfying the conditions stipulated in paragraph - 4.1.1 of the Circular, enclosing the detail....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion as prescribed in Section 42 and 43 of the CGST Act Rule 2017 (for short "CGST Act) the petitioner needs to be allowed to amend its form GSTR-1 for Financial year 2018-19. The petitioner has referred to the provisions of Section 37(3) and 38(5) to contend that the said provisions of the CGST Act cannot be an impediment for the petitioner to correct an inadvertent error and which would not cause any loss of revenue to the exchequer. It is also the petitioner's contention that the statute nowhere restrict other State in claiming the credit of the eligible IGST as ultimately the tax has been collected by the Central Government on intra-State supplies. 8. Mr. Poddar, learned counsel for the petitioner in supporting such contentions has drawn our attention to the decision of this Court in Star Engineers India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India 1 wherein in similar circumstances a coordinate Bench of this Court of which one of us (G. S. Kulkarni, J.) was a member had granted the prayers of the petitioner therein, by directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to amend/rectify the Form GSTR-1 on the ground that there was an inadvertent error on the part of the petitioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orrection of such mistake. Any contrary interpretation of sub-section (3) of Section 37 read with sub-sections (9) and (10) of Section 39 would lead to absurdity and / or bring a regime that GST returns being maintained by the department having incorrect particulars become sacrosanct, which is not what is acceptable to the GST regime, wherein every aspect of the returns has a cascading 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 impu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ike in the present case, was also the situation in the proceedings before the different High Courts as noted by us above, wherein the errors of the assessee were inadvertent and bonafide. There was not an iota of an illegal gain being derived by the assessees. In fact, the scheme of the GST laws itself would contemplate correct data to be available in each and every return of tax, being filed by the assessees. Any incorrect particulars on the varied aspects touching the GST returns would have serious cascading effect, prejudicial not only to the assessee, but also to the third parties." 9. Ms. Jyoti Chavan, learned Additional Government Pleader would not dispute that the present case also is a case of an inadvertent error on the part of the petitioner, wherein the tax has already been paid. She would also fairly state that the decision of this Court in Star Engineer India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) considered a similar situation. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we find ourselves in agreement with the contentions as raised on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner in the present case had subsequently became aware of such....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y claimed to be legitimately entitled to, owing to the fact that the credit stands reflected in the wrong column. It is in these circumstances, after examining the relevant provisions which we have already discussed, the learned Single Judge observed that in the absence of an enabling mechanism, the assessee should not be prejudiced from availing credit which they are otherwise legitimately entitled to. The Court observed that an error committed by the petitioner is an inadvertent human error and the petitioner should not be prevented from rectifying the same and accordingly, allowed the petition. 17. A similar view was taken in the Pentacle Plant Machineries Pvt. Ltd. (supra) which also followed the decision in Sun Dye Chem (supra). 18. We also note that the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in Shiva Jyoti Construction (supra) was considering the case wherein the petitioner had prayed for a relief that the petitioner be permitted to rectify the GST returns filed in September 2017 and March 2018 which was filed inadvertently in Form-B2B instead of Form B2C as was wrongly filed under the GSTR-1 in order to get input tax credit benefit by a third party namely ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ovisions of sub-section (3) of Section 37 and sub-section (9) of Section 39 minus the proviso, have permitted rectification of inadvertent errors. 21. We may also observe that the situation like in the present case, was also the situation in the proceedings before the different High Courts as noted by us above, wherein the errors of the assessee were inadvertent and bonafide. There was not an iota of an illegal gain being derived by the assessees. In fact, the scheme of the GST laws itself would contemplate correct data to be available in each and every return of tax, being filed by the assessees. Any incorrect particulars on the varied aspects touching the GST returns would have serious cascading effect, prejudicial not only to the assessee, but also to the third parties. 22. It is considering such object and the ground realities, the law would be required to be interpreted and applied by the Department. This necessarily would mean, that a bonafide, inadvertent error in furnishing details in a GST return needs to be recognized, and permitted to be corrected by the department, when in such cases the department is aware that there is no loss of revenue to the Gover....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 16.08.2019 seeking rectification of the errors occasioned during the period between October and December 2017. The officer was thus handicapped and could not grant the relief as sought for in the absence of an enabling provision. Furthermore, any move to amend the timelines stipulated under statute could only be done by the Government as per Section 164 of the Act, upon recommendation of the GST Council. xxxx 18. Undoubtedly, the petitioner in this case has committed an error in filing of the details relating to credit. What should have figured in the CGST/SGST column has inadvertently been reflected in the ISGT column. It is nobody's case that the error was deliberate and intended to gain any benefit, and in fact, by reason of the error, the customers of the petitioner will be denied credit which they claim to be legitimately entitled to, owing to the fact that the credits stands reflected in the wrong column. It is for this purpose, to ensure that the suppliers do not lose the benefit of the credit, that the present writ petition has been filed. 19. Admittedly, the 31st of March 2019 was the last date by which rectification of Form - GSTR 1 may be sou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not permitted, then the Petitioner will unnecessarily be prejudiced. 6. In similar circumstances, the Madras High Court in its order dated 6th October, 2020 in Writ Petition No.29676 of 2019 (M/s. SUN DYE CHEM v. The Assistant Commissioner ST) accepted the plea of the Petitioner and directed that the Petitioner in that case should be permitted to file the corrected form. 7. For the aforementioned reasons, the letters of rejection dated 19th June and 23rd September, 2020 are hereby set aside. The Court permits the Petitioner to resubmit the corrected Form-B2B under GSTR-1 for the aforementioned periods September, 2017 and March, 2018 and to enable the Petitioner to do so a direction is issued to the Opposite Parties to receive it manually. Once the corrected Forms are received manually, the Department will facilitate the uploading of those details in the web portal. The directions be carried out within a period of four weeks." 12. High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in the case of M/s. Mahalaxmi Infra Contract Ltd., Vs. Goods and Services Tax Council and Ors - W.P.(T) No.2478/2021 dated 18.10.2022 has held as under: "12. In the instant case it appears tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nly during finalization of the accounts with respondent no.5 who had also by that time detected availment of ITC in lieu of the Tax Invoice No. 1/2018- 19 dated 17th January 2019, though not reflected in its GSTR-2. Petitioner approached this court immediately thereafter on 9th July 2022 seeking a direction upon the respondent GSTN to allow it to rectify returns. The detailed structured mechanism conceived under the JGST Act and the rules framed thereunder having not been put into place, the online portal did not permit such correction by any aggrieved registered person on its own. Therefore, the necessity for such an aggrieved registered person to approach this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is not in dispute that such incorrect entries in GSTR-1by Petitioner for the period January 2019 filed in March 2019 were not going to entail any additional tax impact. The rectification exercise would remain revenue neutral. Such TRAN I forms have been allowed to be filed online or manually in cases where TRAN-1 forms were not filed within the time prescribed by certain registered persons/ assessees. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ily be prejudiced. 6. In similar circumstances, the Madras High Court in its order dated 6th October, 2020 in Writ Petition No.29676 of 2019 (M/s. SUN DYE CHEM v. The Assistant Commissioner ST) accepted the plea of the Petitioner and directed that the Petitioner in that case should be permitted to file the corrected form. 7. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court permits the Petitioner to resubmit the corrected GSTR-1 for the aforementioned periods and to enable the Petitioner to do so, a direction is issued to the Opposite Parties to receive it manually. Once the corrected Forms are received manually, the Department will facilitate the uploading of those details in the web portal. The directions be carried out within a period of four weeks." 14. High Court of Madras in the case of Pentacle Plant Machineries Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Office of GST Council and Ors - W.P.No.1022/2020 dated 23.02.2021 has held as under: "5. Had the requisite statutory Forms been notified, this error would have been captured in the GSTR-2 return, an online form, wherein the details of transactions contained in the GSTR-3 return would be auto-populated and any mismatch noted. Like....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today without fail in accordance with law after considering the applicability of the Circulars dated 26/26/2017-GST dated 29th December, 2017 and the judgment of the Madras High Court in case of Pentacle Plant Machineries Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and in case of Sun Dye Chem (supra). The order that would be passed by the respondent no.2 shall be communicated to the petitioner within one week from the date of passing of the order. If the representation made by the petitioner is allowed, the respondent no.2 shall permit the petitioner to carry out rectification in the GST number in question within one week from the date of the said order. If the order is adverse, the petitioner would be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings." 16. High Court of Gujarat, Ahmedabad in the case of M/s. Screenotex Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Through its Director Hemantkumar Maneklal Patel Vs. Commissioner of CGST - SCA No.9577/2020 dated 30.03.2022 has held as under: "9. We are not getting into the controversy whether there was any mistake on the part of the writ applicant No.1 so far as the GSTR-1 is concerned. The department permitted the writ app....