Deepa Traders Vs Principal Chief Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Madras High Court)
The petitioner has, in respect of the returns for a few months during the period 2017-18, admittedly, committed certain errors. The errors are of following nature.
i) Recipients GSTIN/name has been wrongly mentioned.
ii) The invoice number/date have been wrongly mentioned.
iii) Supply details were correctly supplied in GSTR 3 and tax duly remitted. However, some of the invoice wise details have been omitted to be reported in Form GSTR 1.
iv) IGST was inadvertantly remitted under the heads SGST and CGST.
The aforesaid errors are attributed to inadvertant carelessness on the part of a part-time accountant then employed by the petitioner. The petitioner would also state that the errors had been occasioned during the initial months of implementation of Goods and Services Tax and thus it had also no knowledge of the conditions fully to meet the demands of the system. It was the unfamiliarity with the procedures and the newness in the system itself that had resulted in the commission of these errors.
It was only in December, 2019 that the petitioner states that these errors came to light on account of the customers bringing the same to its attention. Admittedly, no details of such reports by the customers have been placed on file, though the averment figures at paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 of the affidavit of the petitioner. At paragraph 7, the petitioner states that immediately on coming to know of the errors, an attempt was made to rectify the returns only to find that there was no mechanism set out under the Act or in the portal to enable the same.
The fact remains that this Court has taken a view in very similar circumstances as in the present case, in the case of Sun Dye Chem V. Assistant Commissioner (2021 (44) GSTL 358) reiterated in Pentacle Plant Machineries Pvt. Ltd. V. Office of the GST Council, New Delhi (2021 (52) GSTL 129) to the effect that those petitioners must be permitted the benefit of rectification of errors where there is no malafides attributed to the assessee. The errors committed are clearly inadvertent and, the rectification would, in fact, enable proper reporting of the turnover and input tax credit to enable claims to be made in an appropriate fashion by the petitioner and connected assessees.
In light of the consistent view taken by the Court and in deference to the position that such matters, where an expansive view of the issue is called for, are few and far between, as on date, this Court is inclined to accept the prayer of the petitioner and issues mandamus to the respondents to do the needful to enable uploading of the rectified GSTR 1
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The petitioner is a dealer under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short ‘Act’) in metal and steel scrap. The prayer is for a mandamus directing the respondents to enable the petitioner to rectify clerical errors in the details uploaded by it in Form GSTR -1 for the period 2017-18 and cause amendment of the Forms.
2. The petitioner has, in respect of the returns for a few months during the period 2017-18, admittedly, committed certain errors. The errors are of following nature.
i) Recipients GSTIN/name has been wrongly mentioned.
ii) The invoice number/date have been wrongly mentioned.
iii) Supply details were correctly supplied in GSTR 3 and tax duly remitted. However, some of the invoice wise details have been omitted to be reported in Form GSTR 1.
iv) IGST was inadvertantly remitted under the heads SGST and CGST.
3. The aforesaid errors are attributed to inadvertant carelessness on the part of a part-time accountant then employed by the petitioner. The petitioner would also state that the errors had been occasioned during the initial months of implementation of Goods and Services Tax and thus it had also no knowledge of the conditions fully to meet the demands of the system. It was the unfamiliarity with the procedures and the newness in the system itself that had resulted in the commission of these errors.
4. It was only in December, 2019 that the petitioner states that these errors came to light on account of the customers bringing the same to its attention. Admittedly, no details of such reports by the customers have been placed on file, though the averment figures at paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 of the affidavit of the petitioner. At paragraph 7, the petitioner states that immediately on coming to know of the errors, an attempt was made to rectify the returns only to find that there was no mechanism set out under the Act or in the portal to enable the same.
5. To be noted, that the petitioner has averred that the tax liability has been met in full based on the turnover reported and it is only the correction of the errors that is sought, to enable proper reconciliation of the petitioner’s returns and annexures with those of the third parties.
6. Though a counter has been filed, the above contentions reproduced as per paragraphs 5 to 8 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, have not really been disputed.
7. Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would very fairly not raise any dispute on the sequence of events as set out above. He would however argue that there is no mechanism available as on date to issue mandamus as sought for.
8. In this regard, he draws attention to the provisions of Section 37 of the Act coming under Chapter IX of the Act under the head ‘Returns’ – Furnishing details of outside suppliers. The two provisos under Section 37(3) deal with rectification of details, and set out a categoric time frame within which rectification must be effected.
9. For clarity, Section 37(3) and the two provisos thereunder are extracted below:
