2024 (7) TMI 1611 - HC - GST

Application for rectification of returns filed for Financial Year 2017-2018 in Form GSTR-1 - rejection of application on the ground that the time to rectify had ended - HELD THAT - The petitioner is allowed to rectify GSTR-1 for Financial Year 2017-2018. Petition disposed.

Summary

**Summary of the Judgement: High Court, Bombay High Court****Case Citation:** TMI**Judges:** K. R. Shriram and Jitendra Jain, JJ.**Parties:**- **Petitioner:** Represented by Mr. Deepak Bapat and Ms. Sonali Bapat- **Respondents:** Represented by Mr. Vijay Kantharia and Mr. Ram Ochani for respondent nos. 1, 3, and 5; Mr. Himanshu Takke, AGP for respondent nos. 2 and 4**Order:**1. **Issue:** The petitioner sought to rectify the GSTR-1 returns filed for the Financial Year 2017-2018. The application was rejected because the rectification period had expired. The petitioner was aggrieved by the communication dated 19th February 2021.2. **Arguments:** - **Petitioner's Position:** Mr. Bapat argued that the petitioner made a bonafide error in filing the returns, which did not cause any revenue loss to the exchequer. He contended that the GST Act was new, leading to a genuine mistake, and technicalities should not prevent legitimate rectification. He cited precedents from the Bombay High Court, including NRB Bearings Ltd. v/s. The Commissioner of State Tax & Ors., M/s. Railroad Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. v/s. The Union of India and Ors., and Star Engineers (I) Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Union of India and Ors., where similar reliefs were granted. - **Respondent's Position:** Mr. Kantharia acknowledged no revenue loss but noted the rectification request was made almost two years later.3. **Decision:** The court permitted the petitioner to rectify GSTR-1 for the Financial Year 2017-2018, emphasizing the importance of addressing inadvertent errors without causing undue hardship to the assessee.4. **Disposition:** Petition disposed.