Case Law Details
Tvl.Thendral Electricals Vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Madras High Court)
Summary: In the case of Tvl. Thendral Electricals v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [W.P. (MD) No. 6459 of 2024], the Madras High Court permitted the petitioner to rectify an error in their GST filing. The petitioner had mistakenly claimed Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Central and State Tax instead of Integrated Tax in their GSTR-3B form. This clerical error led to an incorrect tax assessment by the department. The court directed the petitioner to file a rectification petition within two weeks of receiving the court order under Section 161 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (TNGST Act). The department will then review the petition and issue an appropriate order after a hearing. This judgment aligns with a similar ruling by the Kerala High Court, allowing the rectification of such errors in tax filings. The case highlights the need for accurate tax filing and provides relief to taxpayers facing similar clerical mistakes.
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Tvl. Thendral Electricals v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [W.P. (MD) No. 6459 of 2024 dated August 28, 2024] directed the Assessee to file the petition for rectification and make representation before the Department in case where the tax was availed under the wrong head i.e. credit of IGST availed in CGST and SGST due to clerical error.
Facts:
Tvl. Thendral Electricals (“the Petitioner”) filed a writ petition against order dated September 13, 2023 (“the Impugned Order”) passed under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the TNGST Act”) on the ground the Impugned Order is prima facie erroneous.
The Petitioner submitted that they were ineligible to avail Input Tax Credit (“ITC”) under the head IGST which was duly reflected in Form GSTR-2A, auto populated as per sales reported by the Petitioner supplier. The Petitioner was required to claim ITC by entering the said value in Column 4A(1)(2) of monthly return in Form GSTR-3B under the head “Integrated Tax”. However, inadvertently, the Petitioner while filing the monthly return has entered the above ITC in column 4(A)(1)(3) and 4A(1)(4) by bifurcating the said value under the head Central Tax and State Tax. The Impugned Order was passed against the Petitioner based on the aforesaid error which was merely clerical in nature.
Issue:
Whether Credit should be denied when the amount of credit filled under wrong head of tax?
Held:
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of W.P. (MD) No. 6459 of 2024 based on the submissions made by the Department, directed the Petitioner to file the petition of rectification of Impugned Order and the same would be considered by the Department and orders would be passed accordingly.
Our Comments:
The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Chukkath Krishnan Praveen v. State of Kerala and Ors. [WP (C) 41219 of 2023 dated December 08, 2023] permitted the Assessee to rectify the error in Form GSTR-3B in case where the ITC relating to CGST and SGST was wrong availed as IGST.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The present writ petition is filed challenging the order passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, dated 13.09.2023, on the premise that it suffers from error apparent on the face of the record.
2. It is submitted that the petitioner was eligible to Input Tax Credit to the extent of Rs.1,92,867/- under Integrated Goods and Service Tax. The same was reflected in Form GSTR-2A, which was auto-populated as per the sales reported by the petitioner’s suppliers. The said Input Tax Credit was entered in column 4A(1)(2) of the monthly return in Form GSTR-3B under the head “Integrated Tax”. However, inadvertently, the petitioner while filing the monthly return had entered the above ITC in column 4(A)(1)(3) and 4(A)(1)(4) by bifurcating the same under the head “Central Tax” and “State Tax”. The impugned order was passed on the premise that in view of the above error, the petitioner is not entitled to claim credit of the taxes paid under the IGST Act.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that this is only a clerical error which is apparent on the face of the record and thus denial of Input Tax Credit is unjustified.
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent on instruction, would submit that the petitioner may be permitted to file a rectification petition within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if such rectification petition is filed within the stipulated period, the same would be considered and orders would be passed in accordance with law after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, acceded to by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
5. Recording the same, the writ petition stands closed. The petitioner is at liberty to file a rectification petition under Section 161 of the TNGST Act, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If however, for any reason, the petitioner does not file the rectification petition within the stipulated period, the impugned order would stands There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.
*****
(Author can be reached at [email protected])
Author Bio
