9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 811 - HC - GSTCorrection of mistake in the return - contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that certain mistakes have crept in at the time of filing the GSTR-1 in Form B2B, due to which the invoice had been reflected in column B2Chf though the petitioner had paid all taxes as and when they were due - HELD THAT - Without entering into the merits of the claim of the petitioner, the present petition is being disposed of with a direction that the petitioner may file a fresh representation raising all his grievances before the competent authority which according to Sri Dhananjay Awasthi learned Advocate is Commissioner, CGST Central Excise Jhansi Division, Jhansi.
Issues: Mistakes in GSTR-1 filing, Correction of errors, Competency of authorities, Fresh representation before competent authority
The judgment addressed the issue raised by the petitioner regarding mistakes in filing GSTR-1 in Form B2B, where an invoice was reflected in the wrong column. The petitioner contended that all taxes were paid on time despite the error. The petitioner sought correction of the form by the respondents, stating a representation was made for the same on a specific date. However, the respondent's counsel argued that the Nodal Officer of the State GST authorities, to whom the representation was addressed, lacked the authority to make corrections. Instead, the State authorities could only forward the filed return to the Central Authority. The respondent's counsel suggested that the petitioner's grievances could be addressed by the Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise Jhansi Division, who had not been approached yet. The court, without delving into the merits of the petitioner's claim, disposed of the petition by directing the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before the competent authority, identified as the Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise Jhansi Division. The petitioner was instructed to raise all grievances in the new representation. If the petitioner approached the competent authority within two weeks of the judgment with a copy of the order, the authority was mandated to take necessary actions within four weeks in accordance with the law. The competent authority was required to provide feedback on the petitioner's application.
|
