9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 628 - HC - GSTRectification of clerical errors in the details uploaded by it in Form GSTR -1 for the period 2017-18 and cause amendment of the Forms - recipients GSTIN/name has been wrongly mentioned - invoice number/date have been wrongly mentioned - some of the invoice wise details have been omitted to be reported in Form GSTR 1 - IGST was inadvertantly remitted under the heads SGST and CGST. HELD THAT - The fact remains that this Court has taken a view in very similar circumstances as in the present case, in the case of M/S. SUN DYE CHEM VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) , THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX 2020 (11) TMI 108 - MADRAS HIGH COURT in 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 to the effect that those petitioners must be permitted the benefit of rectification of errors where there is no malafides attributed to the assessee. The errors committed are clearly inadvertant and, the rectification would, in fact, enable proper reporting of the turnover and input tax credit to enable claims to be made in an appropriate fasion by the petitioner and connected assessees. In light of the consistent view taken by the Court and in deference to the position that such matters, where an expansive view of the issue is called for, are few and far between, as on date, this Court is inclined to accept the prayer of the petitioner and issues mandamus to the respondents to do the needful to enable uploading of the rectified GSTR 1. Let the parties ensure that this exercise is completed within a period of six (6) weeks from today. Petition allowed.
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the issue of rectifying clerical errors in Form GSTR-1 for the period 2017-18 under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Details of the Judgment: Issue 1: Errors in Form GSTR-1 The petitioner, a dealer in metal and steel scrap, sought a mandamus to rectify errors in Form GSTR-1 for the period 2017-18. The errors included wrongly mentioned recipient's GSTIN/name, invoice number/date, omitted invoice details in GSTR 1, and inadvertent remittance of IGST under SGST and CGST. The errors were attributed to inadvertent carelessness due to unfamiliarity with the new Goods and Services Tax system. Issue 2: Lack of Mechanism for Rectification The petitioner discovered the errors in December 2019 when customers brought them to attention. Attempts to rectify the returns were futile due to the absence of a mechanism under the Act or the portal. The tax liability was met based on reported turnover, and the correction was sought for proper reconciliation with third parties. Issue 3: Provisions of Section 37 of the Act The respondents argued that there was no mechanism available for the mandamus sought. They referred to Section 37(3) of the Act, which sets a time frame for rectification of errors in details furnished for any tax period. The petitioner missed the deadline for rectification as per the provisions. Judicial Precedents and Decision The Court noted previous decisions allowing rectification of errors in similar circumstances where no malafides were attributed to the assessee. The errors were deemed inadvertent, and rectification would enable proper reporting for turnover and input tax credit. The Court accepted the petitioner's prayer and issued a mandamus to the respondents to enable uploading of the rectified GSTR 1 within six weeks.
|
