9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 729X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there would not be any scope for any bonafide, and inadvertent rectification / correction. This would presupposes that any inadvertent error which had occurred in filing of the returns, once is permitted to be rectified, any technicality not making a window for such rectification, ought not to defeat the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 37 read with the provisions of sub-section (9) of Section 39 read de hors the provisos. The proviso ought not to defeat the intention of the legislature as borne out on a bare reading of subsection (3) of Section 37 and sub-section (9) of Section 39 in the category of cases when there is a bonafide and inadvertent error in furnishing any particulars in filing of returns, accompanied with the fact that there is no loss of revenue whatsoever in permitting the correction of such mistake. Any contrary interpretation of sub- section (3) of Section 37 read with sub-sections (9) and (10) of Section 39 would lead to absurdity and / or bring a regime that GST returns being maintained by the department having incorrect particulars become sacrosanct, which is not what is acceptable to the GST regime, wherein every aspect of the returns has a cascading ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 34BIZI No:DCST /LTU-1 /E-506 /Star Engineers/ 27AAHCS6334BIZI/ 23-24/B-252 Pune DT.27/09/2023 Subject: Regarding Application for seeking approval to modify / amend From GSTR-1 for FY2021-22. Reference : Your application on dated 11/09/2023. _____________ With reference to the above subject, you have requested for correction in Form GSTR-1 of FY 2021-22 namely for the months of July 2021, November 2021 and January 2022 on account of human error committed by your Company wherein, inadvertently, GSTINs of "Ship to" parties were reported in GSTR-1 instead of "Bill to" party-Bajaj Auto Limited. From the evaluation of facts and supporting thereof, through there does not appear to be any loss of revenue to the Government exchequers, however, provisions under the GST Act prohibits any additional modifications or adjustments post the due date. Therefore, the request of the Company for amendment of GSTR-1 now for sales transactions pertaining to FY 2021-22 is not approval considering the matter is time-barred and thus, your application stands rejected. PANDITRAO DHOKALE Dy. Commissioner of State Tax Pune LTU 505 LTU-1, PUNE" (emphasis supplied) 2. The rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding that the petitioner has fulfilled its tax obligation in relation to the supplies made to BAL during the financial year 2021-22, which indicated that all the required taxes associated with the transactions involving BAL have been appropriately and duly paid by the petitioner to the Government and that the petitioner had also complied all GST Regulations. It was contended that post identification of the inadvertent error made during filing of Form GSTR-1, petitioner has taken proactive steps and secured confirmation from the respective third party companies, confirming the non-availment of ITC at their end. Accordingly, it was contended that what had occurred was merely a procedural error at the petitioner's end and in fact, the petitioner is suffering a double prejudice as though the petitioner had deposited GST with the Government, the credit of payment is held up for want of reflection of the ITC in Form GSTR-2B, which is causing serious financial hardship to the petitioner. The petitioner therefore, requested the said officer that the petitioner be allowed to rectify Form GSTR-1 to correctly reflect the particulars which will resolve the whole issue. In support of such subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned Counsel for the Revenue while not disputing the factual matrix would submit that no fault can be found in the impugned communication as the provisions of the GST Act itself would not permit the State Tax Officer to accept the request as made by the petitioner for amendment / rectification of Form GSTR-1 which was filed by the petitioner for the period in question. Ms. Vyas has also fairly stated that if the request as made by the petitioner is to be accepted, there is no loss of revenue whatsoever to the public exchequer. 9. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record, there is much substance in the contention as urged on behalf of the petitioner. At the outset we are required to note that insofar as filing of GST returns are concerned, the provisions of Sections 37, 38 and 39 of the Central Goods and Services Tax / Maharashtra Goods and Service Tax, 2017 (for short 'CGST / MGST, 2017') are attracted. Section 37 provides for furnishing details of outward supplies. Section 38 provides for furnishing details of inward supplies. Section 39 provides for furnishing of returns. Sub-section (3) of Section 37 provides that any registered person, who h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fifteenth day, of the month succeeding the tax period and the details furnished by him under sub-section (1) shall stand amended accordingly. (3) Any registered person, who has furnished the details under sub-section (1) for any tax period and which have remained unmatched under section 42 section 43, shall, upon discovery of any error or omission therein, rectify such error or omission in such manner as may be prescribed, and shall pay the tax and interest, if any, in case there is a short payment of tax on account of Such error or omission, in the return to be furnished for such tax period : Provided that no rectification of error or omission in respect of the details furnished under sub-Section (1) shall be allowed after furnishing of the return under section 39 for the month of September following the end of the financial year to which such details pertain, or furnishing of the relevant annual return, whichever is earlier: [Provided further that the rectification of error or omission in respect of the details furnished under sub-section (1) shall be allowed after furnishing of the return under section 39 for the month of September, 2018 till the due date for furnishing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both have been made during such tax period. (9) 5[Where] any registered person after furnishing a return under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) or subsection (4) or sub-section (5) discovers any omission or incorrect particulars therein, other than as a result of scrutiny, audit, inspection or enforcement activity by the tax authorities, he shall rectify such omission or incorrect particulars in the return to be furnished for the month or quarter during which such omission or incorrect particulars 6[in such form and manner as may be prescribed], subject to payment of interest under this Act: Provided that no such rectification of any omission or incorrect particulars shall be allowed after the 7[thirtieth day of November] following 8[the end of the financial year to which such details pertain], or the actual date of furnishing of relevant annual return, whichever is earlier. (10) A registered person shall not be allowed to furnish a return for a tax period if the return for any of the previous tax periods 9[or the details of outward supplies under subsection (1) of section 37 for the said tax period has not been furnished by him: Provided that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erials before it which went to show that there was nothing illegal and / or that what had happened at the end of the petitioner was that the invoices generated by the petitioner under the bill-to-ship-to-model for delivery of goods to third party vendors of BAL of which input tax credit for the invoices in question, were not availed by BAL due to error of credit not being reflected in the GSTR-1, as the petitioner had mentioned GSTIN of third party instead of GSTIN of BAL. This is also accepted by the State Tax Officer in the impugned communication. 15. As a result of the above discussion, in our opinion, the State Tax officer ought to have granted the petitioner's request to rectify / amend the Form GSTR-1 for the period July 2021, November 2021 and January 2022, either through Online or manual means. 16. We also find that the petitioner's reliance on the decision as noted by us is quite apposite. In Sun Dye Chem Vs. Assistant Commissioner (supra), learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court considered a similar case wherein an error was committed by the petitioner in filing of details relating to credit. The error was to the effect that what should have figured in the CGST/SG ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustomer of the petitioner, failing which a prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. The Division Bench referring to the decision in Sun Dye Chem (supra) granted the prayer of the petitioner for setting aside the letter of rejection as impugned in the proceedings and permitting the petitioner to resubmit the corrected returns in Form - B2B under GSTR-1 for the period in question. 19. The Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in Mahalaxmi Infra Contract Ltd. (supra) has taken a similar view wherein the Division Bench after considering the rival contentions and the scheme of the legislation, allowed the petition considering the fact that there was no loss of revenue, if such rectification as prayed for by the petitioner was to be granted. 20. On the interpretation of the provisions as made by us and the common thread running through the decisions as noted above, it would lead us to observe that the GST regime as contemplated under the GST Law unlike the prior regime, has evolved a scheme which is largely based on the electronic domain. The diversity, in which the traders and the assessees in our country function, with the limited expertise and resources they would have, can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
