9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dispute that this is not a case where any loss of revenue would be caused to the department as already tax has been paid. Once a bona fide mistake of such nature has occurred, it needs to be rectified and more particularity, considering the observations as made by this Court in Star Engineer India Pvt. Ltd. [ 2023 (12) TMI 729 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] as there is no loss of revenue, in the event such rectification is permitted to the petitioner. This petition is disposed off by directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to amend and rectify form GSTR-1 for the period in question for financial year 2018-19, either through online or manual means, within a period of four weeks from the date a copy of this order is placed before aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... error in submitting the GST number of Mahindra Mahindra (Rajasthan) in its form GSTR-1 instead of correct GST number of Mahindra Mahindra (Orissa). 5. On 10 November 2020 Mahindra Mahindra (Orissa) received intimation in form DRC-01A on the ground of MISMATCH IN GSTR-2A AND GSTR-3B for financial year 2018-19 . On 18 December 2020 the petitioner filed a letter to the GST Authorities apprising them of the situation with a request to allow the petitioner to amend its form GSTR-1 for financial year 2018-19. 6. Thereafter, on 28 December 2020 Mahindra Mahindra (Orissa) also received a show cause notice along with form DRC-01. In the wake of such notices being issued to the petitioner s customers, the petitioner on 16 January 2021 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 on the ground that there was an inadvertent error on the part of the petitioner which ought to have been permitted to be rectified. In rendering such decision, the Court had also considered the decisions of the different High Courts which were in M/s. Sun Dye Chem Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) and Ors. of the Madras High Court, in Shiv Jyoti Construction Vs. The Chairperson, Central Board of Excise Customs and Ors. of the Orissa High Court, and in Mahalaxmi Infra Contract Ltd. Vs. Goods and Services Tax Council and Ors. of the Jharkhand High Court. The Court also examined the provisions of Section 37, 38 and 39 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act as also the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act. It was held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (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 effect. This is necessarily required to be borne in mind when considering the cases of inadvertent human errors creeping into the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he error, the customers of the petitioner would be denied credit which they claimed to be legitimately entitled to, owing to the fact that the credit stands reflected in the wrong column. It is in these circumstances, after examining the relevant provisions which we have already discussed, the learned Single Judge observed that in the absence of an enabling mechanism, the assessee should not be prejudiced from availing credit which they are otherwise legitimately entitled to. The Court observed that an error committed by the petitioner is an inadvertent human error and the petitioner should not be prevented from rectifying the same and accordingly, allowed the petition. 17. A similar view was taken in the Pentacle Plant Machineries Pv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case also is a case of an inadvertent error on the part of the petitioner, wherein the tax has already been paid. She would also fairly state that the decision of this Court in Star Engineer India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) considered a similar situation. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we find ourselves in agreement with the contentions as raised on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner in the present case had subsequently became aware of such mistakes in filing of its return, after notices were issued to Mahindra and Mahindra (Orissa). The notices were issued purely on the mistakes which had happened at the petitioner s end in submitting the returns in form GSTR-01 in which the mismatch ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
