2023 (12) TMI 231 - HC - GST

Seeking direction to respondents to allow the petitioner to correct the details filled in Form GSTR-1 for the month of December, 2017 - Details of export supplies are also to be furnished in Form GSTR-1 - HELD THAT - Reference, at this stage, can be made to the judgment passed by the High Court of Madras in M/S. SUN DYE CHEM VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) , THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX 2020 (11) TMI 108 - MADRAS HIGH COURT wherein the Court was examining the issue with regard to grant of permission to correct the Form GSTR-1 for the periods from August, 2017 to December, 2017. In that case, an error was committed while filing the details relating to the credit. After examining Sections 37 and 38 of the Central GST Act, 2017, the writ petition was allowed by granting permission to the petitioner to re-submit Form GSTR-3B with correct distribution of credit between IGST, SGST and CGST within a period of four weeks. In the facts of the present case as well, on account of technical grounds, the application for correction of Form GSTR-1 has been dismissed by the respondent-department. Moreover, the time of revising the Form GSTR-1 got expired on 31.03.2019 and the petitioner had approached GST Help Desk. Without making correction in Form GSTR-1, the petitioner could not get refund under the Central GST Act, 2017. The petitioner(s) are permitted to re-submit the corrected Form GSTR-1 for the aforesaid period. The respondents can receive the application(s) manually and thereafter, the corrected Forms and details will be uploaded by the Department on the web portal. The directions given by this Court be carried out within a period of four weeks - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the issues of correcting details in Form GSTR-1 for a specific period and the eligibility for refund under the Central GST Act, 2017.

Correction of Form GSTR-1:
The petitioner, a registered dealer in auto parts, sought a mandamus to correct details in Form GSTR-1 for December 2017. The petitioner faced difficulties in correcting the form due to errors in entering SEZ invoices, leading to a refund application issue. Despite approaching the GST Help Desk and relevant authorities, the petitioner was unable to rectify the form within the prescribed time limit. The respondent-department denied the correction citing a circular limiting corrections post the deadline of 31.03.2019. The High Court allowed the petitioner to re-submit the corrected Form GSTR-1 for the mentioned period, following precedents where similar permissions were granted.

Eligibility for Refund:
The petitioner made supplies to an SEZ unit and sought a refund as per zero-rated supply provisions under the Integrated GST Act, 2017. However, due to errors in Form GSTR-1 and the subsequent denial of correction, the petitioner's refund claim was affected. The respondent-department emphasized the importance of timely corrections and valid returns for processing refund claims. The High Court's decision to allow the correction of Form GSTR-1 aimed to address the technical grounds on which the refund application was initially dismissed. The judgment highlighted the petitioner's right to rectify errors under Section 37(3) of the Central GST Act, 2017, ensuring fair treatment in refund claims.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed both petitions, directing the petitioner(s) to resubmit the corrected Form GSTR-1 for the specified period. The manual submission of applications and subsequent uploading of corrected details by the Department were mandated within four weeks. This decision aimed to uphold the petitioner's rights to correct errors in the form and facilitate the processing of refund claims under the Central GST Act, 2017.