9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 782 - HC - GSTRectification of mistake - petitioner seeks an order and direction against the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to allow the petitioner to rectify inadvertent mistake in mentioning incorrect place of supply - period from February, 2018 to June, 2018 and October 2018 - HELD THAT - This Court in an identical matter passed an order in M/S. MAHLE ANAND TERMAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS. 2022 (2) TMI 609 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and has directed the authority to consider the representation made by the petitioner. In this case, the representations are made by the petitioner on 8th July, 2021 and 20th July, 2021. The said representations are still pending. The respondent no.4 are directed to decide those representations within eight weeks from today in accordance with law after considering the judgment of the Madras High Court in case of PENTACLE PLANT MACHINERIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS OFFICE OF THE GST COUNCIL, NEW DELHI, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) , PALLAVARAM ASSESSMENT CIRCLE, CHENNAI, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL GOODS SERVICE TAX, RANGE V,U.P. 2021 (3) TMI 524 - MADRAS HIGH COURT and applicability of the Circular bearing no. 26/26/2017 GST dated 29th December, 2017. The order that would be passed by the respondent no.4 shall be communicated to the petitioner within one week from the date of passing the order. If the representations made by the petitioner are allowed, the respondent no.4 shall permit the petitioner to carry out rectification in the GSTR-1 in question within one week from the date of the said order. Writ Petition is allowed.
Issues Involved:
Rectification of incorrect place of supply in GSTR-1 for specified period Detailed Analysis: The petitioner sought an order to rectify an inadvertent mistake in mentioning the incorrect place of supply in Form GSTR1 for a specific period. The court noted a similar matter where an order was passed directing the authority to consider the petitioner's representation. In this case, the petitioner had made representations on two different dates, which were still pending. The court directed respondent no.4 to decide on these representations within eight weeks, taking into account the judgment of the Madras High Court in a relevant case and the Circular dated 29th December, 2017. The order to be passed should be communicated to the petitioner within one week. If the representations are allowed, the petitioner should be permitted to rectify the GSTR-1 within one week. In case of an adverse order, the petitioner can pursue appropriate legal proceedings. The court allowed the writ petition on the mentioned terms, making the rule absolute without any order as to costs.
|
