2025 (4) TMI 1009 - HC - GST

Rectification of errors in GST returns filed for the financial year 2017-18 beyond the prescribed timelines under Section 37(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 (CGST Act) - HELD THAT - The Bombay High Court in the case of Aberdare Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and ors. vs. Central Board of Indirect Taxes Cusoms and Ors. 2024 (8) TMI 142 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT had allowed the assessee to amend/rectify the form GSTR 1. Against that order a special leave petition was referred by the Revenue which came to be dismissed vide order dated 21 March 2025. While dismissing the SLP the Apex Court was pleased to observed that Right to correct mistakes in the nature of clerical or arithmetical error is a right that flows from right to do business and should not be denied unless there is a good justification and reason to deny benefit of correction. Software limitation itself cannot be a good justification as software are meant to ease compliance and can be configured. Therefore we exercise our discretion and dismiss the special leave petition. The human errors and mistakes are normal and errors are also made by the Revenue. The right to correct mistakes in the nature of clerical or arithmetical error is a right that flows from the right to do business and should not be denied unless there is a good justification and reason to deny benefit of correction. Software limitation itself cannot be a good justification as software is meant to ease compliance and can be configured. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court include:

- Whether the petitioner can rectify errors in GST returns filed for the financial year 2017-18 beyond the prescribed timelines under Section 37(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act).

- Whether the proviso to Section 37(3), which bars rectification after the filing of the return under Section 39 for the month of September following the end of the financial year or the filing of the annual return (whichever is earlier), precludes correction of inadvertent clerical errors discovered belatedly.

- Whether the absence of a mechanism on the GST portal to enable rectification of such errors justifies denial of relief.

- The applicability and scope of judicial precedents, including the Apex Court's observations on the right to correct bona fide clerical or arithmetical errors in GST returns.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Timelines for Rectification of Errors in GST Returns under Section 37(3) CGST Act

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 37(3) of the CGST Act provides that no rectification of error or omission in the return filed under Section 37(1) shall be allowed after the return under Section 39 for the month of September following the end of the financial year or the filing of the annual return, whichever is earlier. The Central Goods and Services Tax (Second Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2018 extended the last date for amendment for the 2017-18 assessment year to the date on which the return for March 2019 was due, which was further extended to 23.04.2019.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court examined whether the petitioner's attempt to rectify errors beyond these timelines is permissible. The Court noted the petitioner's submission that the errors were inadvertent and arose due to unfamiliarity with the new GST system during its initial implementation phase. The petitioner discovered these errors only in December 2019, after the extended timelines had expired.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court acknowledged the statutory timelines but also considered practical difficulties faced by taxpayers and the absence of a mechanism on the GST portal to allow rectifications after the prescribed period. The Court referred to the Apex Court's dismissal of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against a Bombay High Court order permitting rectification of GSTR-1 forms beyond the timelines, emphasizing the need for realistic timelines and the importance of allowing correction of bona fide errors.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued that the statutory timelines are mandatory and no rectification is permissible beyond those dates. The petitioner contended that the errors were genuine, inadvertent, and that denying rectification would cause hardship, including denial of input tax credit to purchasers. The Court found the petitioner's arguments persuasive, especially given the absence of mala fides and full payment of tax liability.

Conclusions: The Court held that the statutory timelines should not be interpreted rigidly to deny the right to correct bona fide clerical or arithmetical errors, particularly when such errors cause hardship to taxpayers and third parties. The Court emphasized that software limitations cannot justify denial of rectification as software should facilitate compliance.

Issue 2: Absence of Mechanism on GST Portal to Enable Rectification

Legal Framework and Precedents: The petitioner submitted that there was no mechanism under the Act or on the GST portal to enable rectification of errors after the prescribed timelines. The Court considered whether this technical limitation could preclude relief.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted the Apex Court's observation that software limitations cannot be a valid ground to deny the right to correct mistakes. The Court reasoned that software is meant to ease compliance and can be configured to allow corrections.

Application of Law to Facts: The petitioner's inability to rectify errors due to portal limitations was not accepted as a valid justification to deny relief. The Court found that the right to rectify clerical errors is inherent in the right to do business and should not be thwarted by technical constraints.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's reliance on the absence of a rectification mechanism was rejected. The Court underscored that human errors are normal and that the law should accommodate correction of such errors to avoid injustice.

Conclusions: The Court concluded that the absence of a rectification mechanism on the GST portal does not bar the petitioner from seeking relief to correct bona fide errors.

Issue 3: Nature of Errors and Absence of Mala Fides

Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court examined the nature of the errors-wrong GSTIN/name, incorrect invoice details, omission of invoice-wise details in GSTR-1, and inadvertent remittance of IGST under SGST and CGST heads. Precedents relied upon included judgments permitting rectification where no mala fides are attributed.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court found that the errors were inadvertent, arising from carelessness by a part-time accountant and unfamiliarity with the GST system. There was no allegation or evidence of mala fide intent or tax evasion.

Application of Law to Facts: Since the tax liability was met in full and the errors related only to reporting details, the Court reasoned that rectification would enable proper reconciliation of returns and ensure correct input tax credit claims.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue did not dispute the facts regarding the nature of errors or the absence of mala fides. The Court accepted the petitioner's uncontested averments.

Conclusions: The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to rectify such inadvertent errors to ensure accurate reporting and reconciliation.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

- "Human errors and mistakes are normal, and errors are also made by the Revenue. The right to correct mistakes in the nature of clerical or arithmetical error is a right that flows from right to do business and should not be denied unless there is a good justification and reason to deny benefit of correction."

- "Software limitation itself cannot be a good justification, as software are meant to ease compliance and can be configured."

- The statutory timelines for rectification under Section 37(3) of the CGST Act, while important, should be interpreted with pragmatism to allow correction of bona fide errors, especially when denial would cause hardship to taxpayers and third parties.

- Absence of mala fide intent and full payment of tax liability weigh heavily in favor of permitting rectification of errors.

- The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the learned Single Judge's order permitting rectification of errors in GST returns beyond the prescribed timelines under the circumstances.