2022 (11) TMI 392 - HC - GST

Seeking a direction to the respondents to allow amendments in the GSTR-1 form filed - direction to the respondents to allow amendments in the GSTR-1 form filed - period January, 2018 to August, 2018 - HELD THAT - Section 39 of the CGST Act as well as the TGST Act deals with furnishing of returns. As per sub-section (1) thereof, every registered person other than an input service distributor or a non-resident taxable person etc., for every calendar month or part thereof, furnish a return electronically of inward and outward supplies of goods and services or both, input tax credit availed, tax payable, tax paid and such other particulars, in such form and manner, and within such time, as may be prescribed. In Bharti Airtel Ltd. 2021 (11) TMI 109 - SUPREME COURT , Supreme Court was of the view that the law provides for rectification of errors and omissions in the specified manner. Beyond the statutorily prescribed period, an assessee cannot be permitted to carry out rectification which would inevitably affect obligations and liabilities of other stakeholders because of the cascading effect in the electronic records. Supreme Court considered the mechanism provided by Section 39(9) of the CGST Act and thereafter took the view that allowing the assessee to carry out rectification of errors and omissions beyond the statutorily prescribed period would lead to complete uncertainty and collapse of the tax administration. Supreme Court took note of the fact that GSTR-2A form for rectification of omissions or incorrect particulars became operational from September, 2018 - the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharti Airtel Ltd. The writ petition is dismissed.

Issues Involved:

1. Amendment of GSTR-1 form for the period January 2018 to August 2018.
2. Entitlement to rectify omissions or incorrect particulars in GSTR-1 form.
3. Limitation period for rectification under Section 39(9) of the CGST Act.
4. Applicability of Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Bharti Airtel Ltd.
5. Comparison with decisions of Gujarat High Court and Madras High Court.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Amendment of GSTR-1 form for the period January 2018 to August 2018:

The petitioner, a private limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of passenger car tyres, sought a direction to amend the GSTR-1 form for the period January 2018 to August 2018. The petitioner had erroneously mentioned the name of the distributor as M/s. Hyderabad Service Station instead of M/s. Bade Miyan Wheels, resulting in the distributor being unable to utilize the input tax credit (ITC) and withholding payment of Rs. 11,68,456.00 to the petitioner.

2. Entitlement to rectify omissions or incorrect particulars in GSTR-1 form:

The petitioner submitted representations to rectify the mistake on 15.03.2021 and 07.07.2021, but no decision was taken by the authorities. The petitioner argued that the case was covered by the Gujarat High Court decision in Siddharth Enterprises v. Nodal Officer and the Madras High Court decision in M/s. SUN DYE CHEM v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST).

3. Limitation period for rectification under Section 39(9) of the CGST Act:

The respondents raised an objection based on Section 39(9) of the CGST Act and the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which prescribe a limitation period for rectification of errors. The period for rectification had expired on 31.03.2019 for returns from January 2018 to March 2018 and on 30.09.2019 for returns from April 2018 to August 2018. The representations were submitted much later, in 2021, and could not be considered.

4. Applicability of Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Bharti Airtel Ltd:

The Supreme Court in Bharti Airtel Ltd. held that the law provides for rectification of errors and omissions in a specified manner within the statutorily prescribed period. Allowing rectification beyond this period would lead to uncertainty and collapse of tax administration. The Supreme Court emphasized that Form GSTR-2A is only a facilitator for self-assessment and that rectification of errors and omissions is permitted only at the initial stages of Forms GSTR-1 and GSTR-3.

5. Comparison with decisions of Gujarat High Court and Madras High Court:

The Gujarat High Court in Siddharth Enterprises held that denial of credit of tax/duty paid under existing enactments would violate Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India. However, the question was whether such a right could be exercised at any time or would be extinguished after the statutory limitation period. The Madras High Court in M/s. SUN DYE CHEM did not consider the effect of Section 39(9) of the CGST Act, which the Telangana High Court found critical.

Conclusion:

The Telangana High Court concluded that the petitioner's request for rectification was not permissible as it was covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Bharti Airtel Ltd. The writ petition was dismissed, and the court emphasized that rectification beyond the statutorily prescribed period would disrupt the tax administration system. The petitioner could not unilaterally amend the returns filed electronically in Form GSTR-3B, as it would affect other stakeholders due to the cascading effect in their electronic records.

← Previous Next →