The court established that inadvertent errors in GST filings can be rectified without loss of revenue, promoting an equitable approach in tax compliance.

JUDGMENT :

BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.

1. Learned advocate Mr. Hardik Vora for the petitioner seeks permission to delete respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 from the cause title. Permission is granted.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hardik Vora for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shrunjal Shah for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shrunjal Shah for the respondents waives service of notice of Rule.

4. Having regard to the controversy involved which is in narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.

5. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“a. A writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order and/or directions in the nature of mandamus declaring the notification no. 09/2023 dated 31.03.2023 (Annexure A) as dehors, arbitrary, ex-facie illegal, without jurisdiction and violative of provisions of section 168A of the CGST Act;

b. A writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order and/or directions in the nature of certiorari to quash the order in DRC-07 dated 20.12.2023 (Annexure B) issued by the respondent no. 4 being time-barred and even otherwise illegal;

c. A writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order and/or directions in the nature of certiorari to quash the appeal order dated 12.02.2025 in GST APL-04 (Annexure C) issued by the respondent no. 5;

d. A writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order and/or directions in the nature of mandamus allowing the Petitioner to rectify the GSTR-1 for the quarter 3 of F.Y. 2017-18 (October to December 2017)”

6. Brief facts of the case are as under:

6.1 The petitioner is a sole proprietorship concern engaged in the business of trading of iron and steel related goods and duly registered under the provisions of Central/ State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the GST Act’) with effect from 1.7.2017.

6.2 The respondent No.4 -State Tax Officer, Ghatak 19, Range 5 Division II, Ahmedabad issued a show-cause notice dated 29.9.2023 in Form GST DRC-01 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why tax amounting to Rs.40,32,390/- should not be demanded and recovered along with interest and penalty on the ground that there is a difference in the outward supplies declared in Form GSTR-01 and outward supplies as per Form GSTR-3B. It was pointed out that the outward supplies as per GSTR-01 is Rs.45,80,158/- and outward supplies as per GSTR-3B is Rs.5,74,022/-. It was also alleged that ITC claimed in GSTR-3B is 3,66,300/- but ITC as per GSTR-1 filed by the suppliers is Rs.3,45,164/-. Therefore, there was excess claim of ITC amounting to Rs.21,136/- and the petitioner has put forth further claim of Rs.5118/- which was ineligible under Section 17 (5) of the GST Act. 6.3 The petitioner filed detailed reply on 28.10.2023 contending that discrepancy in outward supplies in GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B have arisen due to an inadvertent clerical error during the first year of GST implementation, specifically in the return for the month of December, 2017, whereby the sales data pertaining to the sister concern of the petitioner i.e. Semi Steel India was mistakenly uploaded in the Form GSTR-1 of the petitioner which has resulted in the difference.

6.4 With regard to other two discrepancies, it was pointed out that during the Financial Year 2017-18, the facility of GSTR-2A was not operational and therefore, the difference should not be added in the hands of the petitioner.

6.5 With regard to disallowance of ITC under the provision of Section 17 (5) of the GST Act, it was submitted that durin