TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1594
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y No.2 in the return relating to the first quarter of Financial Year 2023-24 (April-June, 2023) showing deposit of Goods and Services Tax in the Tax Deduction at Source Account bearing No.21AACCR5652AlD8 of RVNL-opposite party No.2 in place of the Regular GST Registration No.21AACCR5652AlZZ of the opposite party No.2, before the authorities concerned, landed the taxpayer before this Court by way of filing the instant writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, beseeching following relief(s): "In the circumstances stated above, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this Writ Application, issue notices to the opposite parties to show cause as to why the grievance of the petitioner vide annexure -4 will not be consider and the opposite party No. 1 may kindly be directed to take appropriate step to rectify the mistake of the petitioner and take an appropriate step to rectify/transfer the TDS GST number of the opposite party No.2 account to Regular GST number account of opposite party No.2; And, pass such other Order/Orders, Writ/writs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6.2023 comprising OGST of Rs. 8,08,497/- and CGST of Rs. 8,08,497/- (in toto Rs. 16,16,994/-) and invoice No.BERVNL/23-24/43, dated 26.05.2023 with respect to OGST Rs. 12,41,618/- and CGST Rs. 12,41,618/- (Total Rs. 24,83,236/-) in the Financial Year 2023-24 (May, 2023 and June, 2023). 2.6. Though appropriate taxes have been deposited with the opposite party No.2, none of the opposite parties, being approached by way of representations, has paid any heed to the grievance of the petitioner, which led to knocking of doors of this Court craving to issue writ of mandamus. Hearing: 3. The matter in writ petition came up for hearing on 29.07.2025 under the heading "Fresh Admission" and the Standing Counsel appearing for the CGST Organisation sought accommodation to receive instructions. After couple of adjournments, Junior Standing Counsel furnished copy of instruction as received from the CGST authorities showing helplessness in mitigating the grievance of the petitioner by considering the representation to rectify the defect in the return on the ground that time specified for this purpose has already been elapsed. 3.1. Heard Sri Deepak Kumar Sahoo, learned counsel appearing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es concerned ought to have taken recourse to provisions of Section 161 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("CGST Act", for short). 6.2. Provisions of Section 161 of the CGST Act stand as follows: "Rectification of errors apparent on the face of record.- Without prejudice to the provisions of Section 160, and notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, any authority, who has passed or issued any decision or order or notice or certificate or any other document, may rectify any error which is apparent on the face of record in such decision or order or notice or certificate or any other document, either on its own motion or where such error is brought to its notice by any officer appointed under this Act or an officer appointed under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or an officer appointed under the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act or by the affected person within a period of three months from the date of issue of such decision or order or notice or certificate or any other document, as the case may be: Provided that no such rectification shall be done after a period of six months from the date of issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al slip or omission. The principle behind the said provision is actus curiae neminem gravabit i.e. nobody shall be prejudiced by an act of court. 19. The Code of Civil Procedure recognises the inherent power of the court. It is not only confined to the amendment of the judgment or decree as envisaged under Section 152 of the Code but also inherent power in general. The courts also have duty to see that the records are true and present the correct state of affair. There cannot, however, be any doubt whatsoever that the court cannot exercise the said jurisdiction so as to review its judgment. It cannot also exercise its jurisdiction when no mistake or slip occurred in the decree or order. This provision, in our opinion, should, however, not be construed in a pedantic manner. A decree may, therefore, be corrected by the court both in exercise of its power under Section 152 as also under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such a power of the court is well recognised. *** 21. The question came up for consideration before the Calcutta High Court in Bela Debi, AIR 1952 Cal 86, wherein it was held: (AIR pp. 89-90, paras 19-20) '19. It will thus ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the section applies. But it gives power to rectify any accidental slip or omission in a judgment, decree or order, and might include an accidental slip or omission traceable to the conduct of the parties themselves. But it must be an 'accidental slip or omission'. A mistake made by the parties in a deed upon which the suit is founded, and repeated in the judgment, decree or order, may or may not be an 'accidental slip or omission'. Where it is clear, that such is the case, then I do not see why the Court cannot set it right. In doing so, what is going to be rectified is, the judgment decree or order, and it is not at all necessary to rectify either the pleadings or the deed. In making such corrections, however, the Court can only proceed on the footing that there could be no reasonable doubt as to what it really intended to say in its judgment, decree or order. It cannot go into any disputed questions. If there is a particular description of a property in a deed, and a suit has been instituted on the strength of that description, and a decree passed, it is not permissible in proceedings under Section 152 to go into disputed questions as to what property was intended to be dealt wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In any event, such slips or omissions cannot be rectified in proceedings under Section 152 or even under Section 151 of the Code.' We, with respect, agree with the aforenoticed view. 22. In Lakshmi Ram Bhuyan Vrs. Hari Prasad Bhuyan, (2003) 1 SCC 197 = AIR 2003 SC 351 this Court opined that when a decree had been drawn up by the High Court, the Court can take recourse to Section 152 of the Code stating : (SCC p. 203, para 14) '14. ... In our opinion, the successful party has no other option but to have recourse to Section 152CPC which provides for clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission being corrected at any time by the court either on its own motion or on the application of any of the parties. A reading of the judgment of the High Court shows that in its opinion the plaintiffs were found entitled to succeed in the suit. There is an accidental slip or omission in manifesting the intention of the court by couching the reliefs to which the plaintiffs were entitled in the event of their succeeding in the suit. Section 152 enables the court to vary its judgment so as to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent, decree or order. The omission sought to be corrected which goes to the merits of the case is beyond the scope of Section 152 as if it is looking into it for the first time, for which the proper remedy for the aggrieved party, if at all, is to file an appeal or revision before the higher forum or review application before the very forum, subject to the limitations in respect of such review. It implies that the section cannot be pressed into service to correct an omission which is intentional, however erroneous that may be. It has been noticed that the courts below have been liberally construing and applying the provisions of Sections 151 and 152 of the Code even after passing of effective orders in the lis pending before them. No court can, under the cover of the aforesaid sections, modify, alter or add to the terms of its original judgment, decree or order. Similar view was expressed by this Court in Dwaraka Das Vrs. State of M.P., (1999) 3 SCC 500 and Jayalakshmi Coelho Vrs. Oswald Joseph Coelho, (2001) 4 SCC 181.' ***" 6.7. Broadly what constitutes "record" can be couched from the following decisions: i. State of Madras Vrs. Louis Dreyfus & Co. Ltd., (19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 35 provides: 'The Commissioner or Appellate Assistant Commissioner may, at any time within four years from the date of any order passed by him in appeal or, in the case of the Commissioner, in revision under Section 33-A and the Income Tax Officer may, at any time within four years from the date of any assessment order or refund order passed by him on his own motion rectify any mistake apparent from the record of the appeal, revision, assessment or refund as the case may be, and shall within the like period rectify any such mistake which has been brought to his notice by an assessee.' The question therefore is, was it a mistake apparent from the record which the Income Tax Officer has rectified. It was submitted that recalculation is not rectifying a mistake which is apparent from the record. The words used in the section are "apparent from the record" and the record does not mean only the order of assessment but it comprises all proceedings on which the assessment order is based and the Income Tax Officer is entitled for the purpose of exercising his jurisdiction under Section 35 to look into the whole evidence and the law applicable to ascertain whether there w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ectified under Section 35 we see no reason why a mistake of law which is glaring and obvious cannot be similarly rectified.' The decision of the Privy Council in CIT Vrs. Khem Chand Ram Chand, (1938) 6 ITR 414 was referred to. 19. Counsel for the appellant sought to distinguish both those cases : Venkatachalm case, (1958) 34 ITR 143, 149 and Khem Chand case, (1938) 6 ITR 414 on the ground that the record there considered was the assessment record of that year and the Income Tax Officer did not have to go to the records of the previous year. That is a distinction without a difference. If, for instance, the Income Tax Officer had found that in Assessment Year 1952-53 there was an apparent arithmetical mistake in the account of the written down value of the properties which resulted in a corresponding mistake in the assessment of the year in controversy could he not take the corrected figure for the purposes of the assessment and could it be said that the mistake was not apparent from the record. A fortiori if he discovered that the very basis of the different assessments was erroneous because of an initial mistake in determining the written down value could it be sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uch 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 impugned communication.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7 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 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 pet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssarily would mean, that a bona fide, 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." 6.12. Aforesaid decision of Bombay High Court in Aberdare Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 4122 = (2024) 89 GSTL 6 (Bom) was carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. While dismissing the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.6332 of 2025, in Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs Vrs. Aberdare Technologies Private Limited, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1323, it has been held as follows: "1. Delay condoned. 2. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment which is, in fact, just and fair, as there is no loss of revenue. Hence, the present special leave petition is dismissed. 3. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T authority enclosed therewith the relevant and related documents, like invoices for allowing it opportunity to rectify. 6.14. Though the said representation could have been attended to with expediency, as the underlying policy for introduction of GST law is hassle-free and to show friendly approach towards taxpayer, the Assistant Commissioner (Law), GST and Central Excise, Bhubaneswar instead of instructing the concerned authority to do the needful, issued Letter bearing C.No. 1(10)1/262/LAW/BBSR/2025, dated 08.09.2025 addressing the Junior Standing Counsel, with the following: "In this regard, it is submitted that the error of depositing the tax under the wrong GSTIN made by the petitioner during the months of May, 2023 and June, 2023 could have been duly rectified by the petitioner either in the subsequent month's GSTR-1 return or, at the latest, while filing the annual return in Form GSTR-9 for the relevant Financial Year. However, the statutory timelines prescribed under the GST law for making such rectifications have already lapsed. Consequently, at present, there exists no enabling provision under the CGST Act or the corresponding Rules, nor is there any function....