9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 524 - HC - GSTRectification of mistake - seeking to rectify the mistake in its GSTR-1 return wherein it has instead of the GST number of the purchaser in Andhra Pradesh mentioned the GST number of the purchaser in Uttar Pradesh - HELD THAT - Since Forms GSTR-1A and GSTR-2 (erroneously mentioned as GSTR-2A in M/S. SUN DYE CHEM VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX 2020 (11) TMI 108 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ) are yet to be notified the petitioner should not be mulcted with any liability on account of the bonafide human error and the petitioner must be permitted to correct the same. Petition allowed.
Issues:
Rectification of mistake in GSTR-1 return regarding GST number of purchaser, availability of statutory Forms GSTR-2 and GSTR-1A, denial of credit due to mismatch in GST number, permission to rectify inadvertent errors in filing returns. Analysis: The petitioner sought a mandamus to rectify a mistake in the GSTR-1 return where the GST number of the purchaser in Uttar Pradesh was mentioned instead of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing, filed returns under the CGST Act. The issue was similar to a previous judgment by the same judge. The counter filed by respondents confirmed the error in the invoices. The absence of Forms GSTR-2 and GSTR-1A hindered error detection, and the petitioner missed the deadline for modification due to unawareness of the mistake. The revenue acknowledged the absence of Forms GSTR-2 and 1A but denied credit due to the mismatch in GST numbers. The petitioner was informed of the error by the recipient seeking amendment and legal action. Referring to a previous case, the judge emphasized the need to allow correction of inadvertent errors to prevent legitimate credits from being denied. The judgment allowed the petitioner to resubmit correct details within a specified timeframe without costs. In conclusion, due to the non-notification of Forms GSTR-1A and GSTR-2, the petitioner was not held liable for the genuine human error and was permitted to rectify it. The judgment directed the Assessing Officer to facilitate the amendment to GSTR-1 within eight weeks. Both respondents' counsels agreed that the order should be implemented by the Assessing Officer.
|
