Om Traders Vs Union of India (Patna High Court)
Conclusion: Mere clerical error in filing GSTR-3B, when GSTR-1 reflected correct figures and no revenue loss occurred to department, could not be a ground for raising tax demands and taxpayer was permitted to rectify a clerical error made while filing GSTR-3B.
Held: Assessee was a two-wheeler dealer in Bihar, filed a writ petition challenging tax demands and penalties arising from an inadvertent clerical error while filing GSTR-3B for April 2019. Though GSTR-1 was correctly filed, assessee mistakenly reported incorrect taxable value and tax figures in GSTR-3B. A request to rectify the error in line with GSTR-1 was rejected by the authorities on the ground that there was no legal provision to adjust IGST with CGST/SGST, instead advising payment again and later seeking refund. This led to issuance of demand orders totaling Rs. 2.49 crores. Assessee argued that the error was purely clerical, that no loss was caused to Revenue, and that the available IGST credit could have been adjusted under Rule 88A of the CGST Rules. It relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Aberdare Technologies Pvt Ltd v. CBIC, which permitted rectification of such errors and pointed out that the decision had been affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2025. Revenue argued that assessee failed to follow the advice given by the Assistant Commissioner in 2020 and that under Section 49(5) of the CGST Act, the procedure required fresh payment of CGST and SGST with a subsequent refund claim for the excess IGST. It was held that although there was no system in the GST portal for modifying GSTR-3B once filed, this could not deny a taxpayer the right to correct a genuine clerical mistake. The court also explained that when asked if such rectification would cause loss to the exchequer, the State counsel could not provide an answer. The court referred to the Bombay High Court’s ruling in Aberdare Technologies Pvt Ltd, affirmed by the Supreme Court, where rectification of GSTR-3B was directed in similar circumstances. The Court held that assessee’s request for rectification was justified and that the rejection order and the demand order were unsustainable. The court quashed both orders and directed the authorities to allow rectification of GSTR-3B in line with GSTR-1 within one month upon a manual application from assessee, and to redress any resulting grievance within two months.
