2024 (2) TMI 853 - HC - GST

Disallowance of ITC - mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR- 2A - Rectification of GSTR-1 return - case of the petitioner is that the petitioner approached the jurisdictional officer/respondent no. 2 to allow the petitioner to alter/amend the invoice details pertaining to F.Y. 2017-18 in GSTR-1 for the month of December, 2019 - HELD THAT - The petitioner has placed reliance on the decision in the case of STAR ENGINEERS (I) PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX-GST 2023 (12) TMI 729 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT wherein similar issues had fell for consideration of this Court. The court considering the provisions of the CGST Act had observed that in cases where there was a bonafide error in filing of the return and when there was no loss of revenue caused to the Government/exchequer, the technicalities on any legitimate rectification ought not to come in the way of the assessee, so as to suffer an inadvertent error, which would have a cascading effect. The present situation as brought before the Court is certainly covered as discussed by the Court in Star Engineers (I) Pvt. Ltd. The petition is allowed by permitting the petitioner to rectify the GSTR-1 for the period 2017-18.

Summary

Issues involved:
The petition sought a writ of mandamus to rectify GSTR-1 for 2017-2018 and to declare eligibility of respondent no. 4 for ITC amounting to Rs. 64,36,188 due to a clerical error by the petitioner.

Rectification of GSTR-1:
The petitioner requested to amend invoice details in GSTR-1 for the period 2017-18, citing a need to rectify a clerical error. The petitioner approached the jurisdictional officer to allow the amendment, supported by confirmation from job workers that no input tax credit had been availed. Despite no proceedings initiated against respondent no. 4, the petitioner sought rectification based on guidelines issued by the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner argued that there was no provision under the CGST Act for rectification of bonafide errors in GSTR-1, emphasizing that there was no revenue implication. Relying on a previous court decision, the petitioner contended that legitimate rectification should be allowed without technical hindrances.

Decision:
The High Court allowed the petition, permitting the petitioner to rectify the GSTR-1 for the period 2017-18. The court kept all contentions open regarding the eligibility of respondent no. 4 for ITC, allowing the petitioner to make further applications if permissible by law. The judgment was disposed of with no costs incurred.