- About us
- Site map
- Contact Us
- Contact Us
The Petitioner had committed 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. The Petitioner had requested for amendment of GSTR-1, which had been rejected by the Respondents in August 2019 on the ground that there was no provision to grant the amendment sought. Aggrieved, the Petitioner filed a Writ before the Madras HC seeking a mandamus directing the Respondents to permit correction in Form GSTR-1 for the relevant period.
Referring to the relevant provision of Return filing under the CGST Act, the Madras HC observed that a registered person who files a return involving intra-State outward supply is to indicate the collection of taxes in Form GSTR-1 and the details of tax payment therein are auto populated in Form GSTR -2-A of the buyers. Any mismatch between Form GSTR-1 and Form GSTR-2A is to be notified by the recipient by way of a tabulation in Form GSTR-1A.
It was further observed by the HC that Forms in GSTR-2A and GSTR-1A were not notified by the Revenue. The statutory procedure contemplated for seamless availment was, as on date, unavailable. The HC noted that it is nobody’s case that the error was deliberate and intended to gain any benefit, and in fact, by reason of the error, the customers of the petitioner would be denied credit, owing to the fact that the credits stands reflected in the wrong column.
The HC further observed that had the requisite Form GSTR-1A and Form GSTR-2A been notified, the mismatch between the details of credit in the Petitioner’s and the supplier’s returns might well have been noticed and appropriate and timely action taken. The HC further remarked that in the absence of an enabling mechanism, assessees should not be prejudiced from availing credit that they are otherwise legitimately entitled to. Accordingly, the HC allowed the Writ petition and allowed filing of Form GSTR-1 being an annexure to GSTR-3B.
The Madras HC has passed a well-reasoned order, keeping in mind the natural justice and the intent of the law. In this regard, it would be pertinent to note that Kerala HC in the case of Saji S. [2018 (19) G.S.T.L. 385] had permitted the request of transfer of tax liability from the head ‘SGST’ to ‘IGST’ as it would be inequitable for the Petitioners therein to suffer on the count that the transfer would take some time.
Similarly, the Andhra Pradesh HC in the case of Panduranga Stone Crushers [2019 (30) G.S.T.L. 385] had provided an interim relief allowed the rectification of a clerical error subject to the final outcome of the Writ Petition.
The information provided in this update is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal opinion or advice. Readers are requested to seek formal legal advice prior to acting upon any of the information provided herein. This update is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or corporate body. There can be no assurance that the judicial/ quasi judicial authorities may not take a position contrary to the views mentioned hereinrra quis.
Sign up for the Newsletter