TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1263
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner is a registered taxpayer, who filed returns in GSTR-1 returns for the tax period from June 2022 to September 2022. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that in the said returns, the petitioner inadvertently uploaded the GSTIN of respondent No. 5, which is at Kerala instead of Tamil Nadu Branch, which is at Chennai, as a result of which, the respondent No. 4 was not in a position to avail the Input Tax Credit. In this regard, it is contented that the petitioner was completely unaware of the said mistake that had crept in the GSTR-1 returns, till the respondent No. 4 addressed an email dated 28.12.2023 to the petitioner inviting its attention regarding the aforesaid error in the GSTR-1 returns and consequently, withheld a sum of Rs. 71,26,070/- together with interest of Rs. 19,45,219/- from the bills payable to the petitioner. Petitioner contends that after coming to know about the said mistake, the petitioner requested the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 vide Annexure-H dated 03.04.2024, requesting permission to rectify/revise the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the petitioner of an option of amending the said invoices. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that during the pendency of the said application, the petitioner received confirmation from the job workers confirming that they have not availed the input tax credit. On 6 January, 2022, an application was filed before the Central Jurisdictional Commissionerate/respondent no. 4 in relation to the disallowance of credit to respondent no. 4 on account of the mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A. It is stated that by communication received by the petitioner on 27 January, 2022, the Central Jurisdictional Commissionerate informed the petitioner that no proceedings had been initiated against respondent no. 4, in this regard as also no communication was received from the State Jurisdictional Commissionerate. 5. The petitioner has also referred to the guidelines which were issued by the State of Maharashtra in its Circular No. 02A of 2022 on the issues arising from ITC claims, in pursuance of which, it is contended that on 9 May, 2022, the petitioner obtained a certificate from its Chartered Accountant, certifying that the petitioner had duly discharged GST on the transactio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "1. Mr. Chandrashekhar states that he shall appear for Respondent No. 1. Ms. Vyas at the request of this Court agrees to appear for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. As regards Respondent No. 4, Mr. Sarda, on instructions, states have been served some time in May 2024. 2. Petitioner has filed GST returns within time but after some time in December 2023, realised that there were certain errors with no loss of Revenue to the State. The time prescribed under Section 39(9) of CGST Act states the rectification of such omission or incorrect particulars have to be made on or before 30th day of November, following the end of the financial year to which such details pertained. Mr. Sarda states that because they had missed the deadline, Petitioner made a request in writing to the concerned authorities to permit rectification which has not been granted. 3. Ms. Vyas in fairness informed the Court that there is a judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 15368 of 2023 pronounced on 14th December 2023, Star Engineers (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. where the Court has held that if there is no loss of Revenue, amendment / rectification of the Form GSTR-1 should....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fy 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, 2017 (for short 'CGST / MGST, 2017') are attracted. Section 37 provides for furnishing details of outward supplies. Section 38 provides for furnishing details of inward suppli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ributor 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 relevant annual return, whichever is earlier: [Provided further that the rectification of error or omission in respect of the detai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o 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) 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 registered person shall not be allowed to furnish a return for a tax period if the return for a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 Chem Vs. Assistant Commissioner (supra), learned Single Judge of the Madras Hi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 regime as contemplated under the GST Law unlike t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to amend /rectify the Form GSTR-1 for the period July 2021, November 2021 and January 2022, either through Online or manual means within a period of four weeks from today. (2) Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. No costs." 3. The facts of this case before us is almost identical in as much as, there is no loss to revenue if, petitioner is permitted to amend the GST returns filed. 4. In the circumstances, we direct respondents to open the portal within one week from the date of this order being uploaded and inform petitioner to enable them to amend / rectify Form GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B within one week. If the portal is not opened for whatever reasons, petitioner shall file application to amend / rectify Form GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B manually and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to accept and process the same in accordance with law. If these respondents are going to take a stand contrary to petitioner's interest, they shall give notice to petitioner atleast five working days in advance and give personal hearing. 5. Petition disposed." 7. As can be seen from the aforesaid judgments, after having permitted the petitioner therein to carry....