10 times when court allowed to rectify GST returns to claim ITC
When the courts allowed the rectification-
The scheme of GST always allowed the rectification in return. But in many cases the portal restricted it. But initial hiccups of GSTIN made it difficult. In many cases the taxpayer was not being able to rectify their mistake. GSTR 3b was never being allowed to get rectified. A circular issued which only allowed to reduce and increase the figure in the returns of later dates.
This left many unsolved cases. Lateron the department started to issue the notices for every small mistake. Now the amendments which never happened started putting the liability on TP.
They approached the court and get relief in many cases. In this article I have compiled some of those cases. I hope they will be useful for all readers.
1- Divya SR Vs Union of India- Kerala High court
In this case the petitioner plead let him set off input tax credit of IGST to the tune of Rs.1,14,957/-, which was wrongly claimed under CGST and SGST for the period July, 2017 to March, 2018 against the output tax liability of the petitioner for the said period.
The court ordered the respondent to accept the application of appellent.
Read judgment
Divya SR CE judgment for rectification in REturn in GST
2- NRB Bearings Ltd Versus The Commissioner of State Tax – Bombay High court
The petitioner did and error in their return. Due to that ITC of their recipient became ineligible. The petitioner said that there is no mechanism to amend the return. But the tax was paid.
The court allowed the petitioner to amend the return. You can read this judgment here
3- Railboard Logistics Indian Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India – Bombay High Court
In these circumstances, we find that 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. (supra) as there is no loss of revenue, in the event such rectification is permitted to the petitioner.
We, accordingly, dispose of this petition 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 authorities.
Thus the honourable court ordered to let the petitioner rectify the return and allow credit to the buyer.
Railroad-Logistics-India-Pvt.-Ltd.-Vs-Union-of-India-Ors.-Bombay-High-Court (1)
4- Star Engineers (I) Pvt. Ltd. …Petitioner Versus. Union of India – Bombay High Court
“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.”
Court allowed the rectification in this case. As it as a bona fide mistake and there was no loss of revenue.
5- Shiv Jyoti Construction Vs. The Chairperson, Central Board of Excise & Customs and Ors- Orrissa High court
A supply was recorded as B2C in place of B2B. The petitioner asked the department to allow them to rectify. As there is no loss of revenue but the payment of petitioner was put on hold by recipient.
The court allowed the petitioner to file the revised return to correct the mistake.
6- M/s. Sun Dye Chem Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) and Ors. – Madras High court
Taxpayer did an inadvertent error in reporting the credit in Form GSTR-1 in regard to the outward supplies and Intra-state sales had been erroneously reported as inter-state sales, as a result, the CGST and SGST credit was reflected in the IGST column. It came to his notice when his client pointed out.
The petitioner was allowed to resubmit the annextures. Read the judgment here.
7- Mahalaxmi Infra Contract Ltd. Vs. Goods and Services Tax Council and Ors. Jharkhand High court
Such correction of relevant returns in case of the petitioner i.e.,GSTR-1, GSTR-2A in case of the respondent no. 5 and 6 would allow the respondent no.5 to rightly avail the ITC against the tax paid under Tax Invoice number 1/ 2018-19 dated 17th January 2019 issued by the petitioner, we are of the considered view that interest of justice would be served if the petitioner is allowed to make the necessary correction in GSTR-1 form for January 2019.
Such correction, if does not entail technical difficulties by the GSTN, may be allowed to be made online by GSTN by opening the portal for a limited period upon due communication to the petitioner and respondent no.5 and 6 as it would reflect corresponding correction in their GSTR-2A form for the relevant period. If such a course is not possible to be done online for technical reasons, the GSTN could allow the petitioner to make such corrections through manual mode. Let such correction be allowed to be made within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Read order
8- Anvita Associates Va Union of India- Bombay High court
Bombay high court allowed to amend the returns. In this case the inadvertent errors occurred in the return. In this case the ITC of buyer was deprived of his input tax credit. The rectification specifically allowed the supplier to settle the dispute of Rs 27,05,105 with Mahindra Logistics.
The court allowed the rectification to let the ITC flow to the recipient.
9-Pentacle Plant Machineries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Office of GST Council & Ors
The petitioner seeks a mandamus directing the respondents to rectify the mistake in its GSTR-1 return, wherein it has, instead of the GST number of the purchaser in Andhra Pradesh, mentioned the GST number of the purchaser in Uttar Pradesh.
The court allowed the rectification
10-M/s Varshan Enterprises Vs the Office of GST council Writ 10637 of Andhra Pradesh High court.
The TP is engaged in making supply to Vodafone mobile services ltd. They requested the superintendent to let them rectify it. They have written a letter. But the demand was rejected.
The court held in very stern voice-
“The said letter of the Superintendent of CGST is wholly untenable, which is nothing but illegal, arbitrary and unjustified.
The time limit of two years from the date of payment of the amount in issue towards IGST specified in Section 54 of the CGST Act is not applicable to the present case. There is no possibility for the petitioner to follow the said Circular practically.
Hence, the communication received from the Superintendent of Central GST is nothing but denial of the claim of the petitioner which is illegal, arbitrary and incorrect. It is also against the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Limited v. Union of India.
Hence, it is urged that the communication of the second respondent, dated 26.02.2021, is liable to be set-aside and appropriate directions be given to the first and second respondents either permitting the petitioner to rectify the details relating to the recipient of the cable laying services furnished in Form GSTR-1 for the quarter ending 30.06.2018 or direct the second respondent to refund Rs.7,87,328=78.”
Read judgment here
Varshan Enterprises GST judgment
11-Jabil Circuit India Private Limited Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court)
Here the petition was to amend the place pf supply.
They entered the wrong place of supply due to that the ITC was ineligible for the buyer. The court allowed the amendment in this case.
Jabil-Circuit-India-Private-Limited-Vs-Union-of-India-Bombay-High-Court-11-02-2022
12- M/S COMSOL ENERGYPRIVATE LIMITED Versus STATE OF GUJARAT of Gujarat High court
If you already have a premium membership, Sign In.
CA Shafaly Girdharwal
CA
New Delhi, India
CA Shaifaly Girdharwal is a GST consultant, Author, Trainer and a famous You tuber. She has taken many seminars on various topics of GST. She is Partner at Ashu Dalmia & Associates and heading the Indirect Tax department. She has authored a book on GST published by Taxmann.
