IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ANITA SUMANTH, J.
Deepa Traders – Appellant
Versus
Principal Chief Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 12382 of 2020
Decided On : 09-03-2023
Mandamus - Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 37(3) - Rectification of errors in GSTR 1 forms - Summary of Acts and Sections: Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, Section 37(3)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a dealer under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, sought a mandamus to rectify clerical errors in its GSTR 1 forms for the year 2017-18. Errors included incorrect GSTIN/name, invoice number/date, omitted details, and inadvertent remittance of IGST under SGST and CGST.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the errors were due to inadvertent carelessness and unfamiliarity with the new tax system. The petitioner had met its tax liability and sought only to rectify the errors for proper reconciliation of returns with third parties.
Issues: The main issue was the availability of a mechanism for rectifying errors in GSTR 1 forms under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous decisions to permit rectification of errors where no malafides were attributed to the assessee. It emphasized that inadvertent mistakes should be permitted to be corrected, especially in the absence of an effective, enabling mechanism under the statute.
Final Decision: The court issued a mandamus to the respondents to enable the uploading of the rectified GSTR 1 forms within six weeks.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to enable the Petitioner to rectify the clerical errors in the details uploaded by the Petitioner in its GSTR 1 forms for the year 2017-18 by amending the Forms.)
1. The petitioner is a dealer under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short ''Act'') in metal and steel scrap. The prayer is for a mandamus directing the respondents to enable the petitioner to rectify clerical errors in the details uploaded by it in Form GSTR -1 for the period 2017-18 and cause amendment of the Forms.
2. The petitioner has, in respect of the returns for a few months during the period 2017-18, admittedly, committed certain errors. The errors are of following nature.
i) Recipients GSTIN/name has been wrongly mentioned.
ii) The invoice number/date have been wrongly mentioned.
iii) Supply details were correctly supplied in GSTR 3 and tax duly remitted. However, some of the invoice wise details have been omitted to be reported in Form GSTR 1.
iv) IGST was inadvertantly remitted under the heads SGST and CGST.
3. The aforesaid errors are attributed to inadvertant carelessness on the part of a part-time accountant then employed by the petitioner. The petitioner would also state that the errors had been occasioned during the initial months of implementation of Goods and Services Tax and thus it had also no knowledge of the conditions fully to meet the demands of the system. It was the unfamiliarity with the procedures and the newness in the system itself that had resulted in the commission of these errors.
4. It was only in December, 2019 that the petitioner states that these errors came to light on account of the customers bringing the same to its attention. Admittedly, no details of such reports by the customers have been placed on file, though the averment figures at paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 of the affidavit of the petitioner. At paragraph 7, the petitioner states that immediately on coming to know of the errors, an attempt was made to rectify the returns only to find that there was no mechanism set out under the Act or in the portal to enable the same.
5. To be noted, that the petitioner has averred that the tax liability has been met in full based on the turnover reported and it is only the correction of the errors that is sought, to enable proper reconciliation of the petitioner''s returns and annexures with those of the third parties.
6. Though a counter has been filed, the above contentions reproduced as per paragraphs 5 to 8 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, have not really been disputed.
7. Mr. Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would very fairly not raise any dispute on the sequence of events as set out above. He would however argue that there is no mechanism available as on date to issue mandamus as sought for.
8. In this regard, he draws attention to the provisions of Section 37 of the Act coming under Chapter IX of the Act under the head ''Returns'' – Furnishing details of outside suppliers. The two provisos under Section 37(3) deal with rectification of details, and set out a categoric time frame within which rectification must be effected.
9. For clarity, Section 37(3) and the two provisos thereunder are extracted below:
37. Furnishing details of outward supplies.—
(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 or 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
Inadvertent mistakes in filing tax returns should be permitted to be corrected, especially in the absence of an effective, enabling mechanism under the statute.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of the GST Act allow for rectification of inadvertent errors in GST returns when there is no loss of revenue to the government,....
Bonafide errors in GST returns should not obstruct rectification where no revenue loss occurs, promoting accuracy and fairness under GST provisions.
A taxpayer may be permitted to amend GST forms post-deadline under specific circumstances, provided procedural compliance and prior filing errors justify such corrections.
The court established that inadvertent errors in GST filings can be rectified without loss of revenue, promoting an equitable approach in tax compliance.
[The judgment establishes that while Input Tax Credit (ITC) should not be denied solely based on procedural errors, strict compliance with the statutory provisions of the CGST Act is essential for av....
Inadvertent human errors in claiming input tax credit under the GST regime should not preclude a petitioner from having its claim examined by the authorities in accordance with law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.