TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1886
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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.29676/2019 ii) Pentacle Plant Machineries Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Office of the GST....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f 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 Principal Directors General/ Directors General (All) Madam/Sir, Subject: Clarification to deal with difference in Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed in FORM GSTR-3B as compared to that detailed in FOR....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ST 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 provided in para 4 below. c. Where supplies were made to a registered person and invoice is issued as per Rule 46 of CGST Rules containing GSTIN of the recipient, but supplier has wrongly reported the said supply as B2C supply, instead of B2B supply, in h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 verified from ICMAI website https://eicmai.in/udin/VerifyUDIN.aspx . 4.1.2 In cases, 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 is upto Rs 5 lakh, the proper officer shall ask the claimant t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 details of the Invoices issued by the petitioner to the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent has filed statement of objections setting out the facts admitting, accepting and re-enforcing the claim of the petitioner with regard to the discrepancies / mismatch in mentioning of the GSTIN Number. 8. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that it would b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 which ought to have been permitted to be rectified. In rendering such decision, the Court had also considered the decisions of the different High Courts which were in M/s. Sun Dye Chem Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) and Ors. of the Madras High Court, in Shiv Jyoti Construction Vs. The Chairperson, Central Board of Excise & Customs and Ors. of the Orissa High Court, and in Mahalaxmi Infra Contract Ltd. Vs. Go....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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. 16. We also find that the petitioner's reliance on the decision as noted by us is quite apposite. In Sun Dye Chem Vs. Assistant Commissioner (supra), learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court considered a similar case wherein an error was committed by the petitioner in filing of details relating to credit. The error was to the effect that what should have figured in the CGST/SGST column was inadvertently ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 mistakes in filing of its return, after notices were issued to Mahindra and Mahindra (Orissa). The notices were issued purely on the mistakes which had happened at the petitioner's end in submitting the returns in form GSTR- 01 in which the mismatch had occurred in the GST in numbers as noted hereinabove. It appears to be not in dispute that this is not a case where any loss of revenue would be caused to the department as already tax has been paid. 11. In these circumstances,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 M/s. Odisha Construction Corporation Ltd. The last date for filing of return was 31 March 2019 and the rectification should have been carried out by 13 April 2019. The petitioner contended that an error came to be noticed after the said third party held up the running bill amount of the petitioner by informing it of the error on 21 January 2020. The petitioner contended that thereafter it was making a request to the department to correct the GSTR-1 form, but it was not allowed. It in these circumstances, the Court considering the fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 Government. Such free play in the joint requires an eminent recognition. The department needs to avoid unwarranted litigation on such issues, and make the system more assessee friendly. Such approach would also foster the interest of revenue in the collection of taxes. 23. In the aforesaid circumstances, we have no manner of doubt that the petition is required to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed by the following order:- ORDER (I) The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to amend / rectify the Form GSTR-1 for the period July 2021, November 202....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 sought. However, and also admittedly, the Forms, by filing of which the petitioner might have noticed the error and sought amendment, viz. GSTR-2A and GSTR-1A are yet to be notified. Had the requisite Forms been notified, the mismatch between the details of credit in the petitioner'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 l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 that on account of an inadvertent error, the entry relating to Tax Invoice No. 01/2018- 19 dated 17th January 2019 could not be reflected in the GSTR-1 filed by the petitioner against the GSTIN of Eastern Coalfields Limited (GSTIN No. 20AAACE7590E3ZX). Instead it was quoted in the GSTIN of Respondent No.6 MIPL-NKAS (JV) [GSTIN No.20AAEAM0162G1Z9] which was not the recipient of such supplies. Though, Respondent No.5 availed of such input tax credit bona fide believing that it had paid the taxes against such invoices, but on realizing the same reversed the entries in May 2022 as the same we are not reflected in his GSTR- 2A return for the said period. The said entries, though reflected in the GSTR-2A of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itution 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 are to that effect. 13. Having gone through the decisions cited in support by learned counsel for the petitioner and that the instant case does not present any additional tax impact, or loss of revenue for the State Exchequer and, in fact, such correction of relevant returns in case of the petitioner i.e.,GSTR-1, GSTR-2A in case of the respondent no. 5 and 6 would allow the respondent no.5 to rightly avail the ITC against the tax paid under Tax Invoice number 1/2018-19 dated 17th January 2019 issued by the petitioner, we are of the considered view that interest of justice would be served if the petitioner is allowed to make the necessary correction in GSTR-1 form for January 2019. Such correction....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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. Likewise, had the GSTR-1A return been notified, the mismatch might have been noticed at the end of the purchaser/recipient. However, neither Form GSTR-2 nor Form GSTR-1A have been notified till date. No doubt, the time for modification/amendment of a GSTR-3B return was extended till the 31st of March 2019, which benefit the petitioner did not avail since it was unaware that a mistake had crept into its original returns. 6. The revenue does not dispute the position that Forms GSTR-2 and 1A are yet to be notified. It also does not dispute the position that goods have reached the intended recipient. However, the credit claimed on the basis of accompanying invoices has been denied solely on account of the mismatch in GSTR number. It is only on 15.07.2019 w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, 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 applicant No.1 to amend the GSTR-1 with respect to all the nine invoices however, for some reason or the other, the writ applicant No.1 was in a position to amend only four such invoices. He is here before this Court as he is not able to amend the remaining five. There is a controversy whether those five invoices could have also been amended in the first instance or not. 10. Be that as it may, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to grant one last opportunity to the writ applicant to get his GSTR-1 with respect to all the five invoices amended for one last time. 11. The Respondents are directed to process the request of the writ applicant No. 1 for carrying out amendment in its GSTR -1 returns pertaining to the respective months in 2019 in all the aforesaid writ petitions with....