The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in M/S Deepak Print v. Union of India [R/Special Civil Application No.  18157 of 2019, decided on March 9, 2021] directed the revenue department to allow the rectification of entries in the Form GSTR-3B return for the Month of May, 2019, on account of genuine bonafide human error.

Facts:

M/S Deepak Print (the Petitioner) is a proprietor engaged in the business of printing of dress materials etc. That the Petitioner had submitted the return of his business in the month of May, 2019 through the online process, i.e., the GST Portal. The Petitioner, inadvertently, in the course of making entries in the Form GSTR-3B for the month of May, 2019, wrongly uploaded the entries of M/s. Deepak Process instead of M/s. Deepak Print i.e., the Petitioner.

Subsequently, the Petitioner preferred a representation in writing addressed to the Nodal Officer, SGST Office, Rajkot (“Respondent”) dated June 25, 2019, for which no response has been provided till date.

Being aggrieved, the Petitioner has filed this writ seeking to edit and upload actual entries in Form GSTR-3B for the Month of May 2019 which is at the submission stage and to modify the conditions and rules mentioned in the Annexure-A of Circular No. 26/26/2017-GST, dated December 29, 2017, by which a registered person can edit any error if occurred during submitting/offsetting the Input Tax Credit (“ITC”) and before filing of the Form GSTR-3B return.

Issue:

Whether the Petitioner is entitled to seek rectification of Form GSTR-3B for the month of May, 2019?

Held:

The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in R/Special Civil Application No.  18157 of 2019, decided on March 9, 2021 held as under:

  • Observed that the Respondent did not give a formal reply or respond to the representation preferred by the Petitioner. The Petitioner tried his best to take up the matter with the concerned authority, but ultimately had to come before the Court with the present writ application.
  • Noted that, in last two years, the Respondent has not even thought fit to file a formal reply opposing the writ application. Even, as on date, time was prayed for, which the Court declined having regard to the facts of the present case.
  • Relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bharti Airtel Limited v. Union of India & Ors., [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6345 of 2018, decided on May 05, 2020] and held that the Petitioner should be permitted to rectify the Form GSTR-3B in respect of the relevant period.
  • Directed the Respondent, to modify the conditions and rules mentioned in Annexure A of Circular No. 26/26/2017-GST, dated December 29, 2017, by which a registered person can edit any error if occurred during submitting/offsetting the ITC and before the filing of the Form GSTR-3B return.
  • Further, directed the Respondent that on filing rectified Form GSTR -3B, Respondent shall verify the claims made therein and give effect to the same once verified with in 2 weeks.
  • Furthermore, Petitioner shall not be saddled with the liability of payment of late fees as they have been dragged into unnecessary litigation only on account of the technicalities raised by the Respondent.

Our Comments:

Recently, the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Pentacle Plant Machineries Pvt. Ltd. v. Office of the GST Council and ors. [W.P. No. 1022 of 2020, decided on February 23, 2021] has allowed the assessee to correct a “human error” while filing Form GSTR-1 return, wherein the assessee mentioned the GST number of the purchaser in Uttar Pradesh instead of the GST number of the purchaser in Andhra Pradesh and realized only when the recipient notified it of the rejection of credit. Relied on its earlier decision in Sun Dye Chem v. The Assistant Commissioner [W.P. No. 29676 of 2019, decided on October 6, 2020] wherein it was held that the assessee should not be mulcted with any liability on account of the bonafide, human error and must be permitted to correct the same. Directed the Revenue to enable amendment to Form GSTR-1 with all consequences thereto, within a period of 8 weeks.

*****

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon.

Author Bio

More Under Goods and Services Tax

5 Comments

  1. Om Prakash Jain says:

    Sir,
    The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in paras 4 & 5 has rightly pointed out that the writ applicant has been dragged into unnecessary litigation only on account of the technicalities raised by the respondents and the Department is in the habit of raising, and thereby giving result to unnecessary litigation.
    But such adamant approach of the Deptt. has been upheld by the Apex Court. The Govt. has obtained stay over the Judgment of Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Union of India (2020) 33 J.K.Jain’s GST & VR 361 (Delhi) from Supreme Court on 17.12.2020 : Union of India v. Bharti Airtel Ltd (2020) J.K.Jain’s GST & VR 1 & as such till the issue is decided by the Supreme court, the above nice judgment of Gujarat High Court, by implication, will be demed to be stayed.
    Om Prakah Jain 9414300730

  2. Vikas Jain says:

    Dear Sir

    I have just opened a new company and the nature of business is the manufacturing of organic water. now the business is in the development stage. I just want to know that can I claim the ITC paid on R&D expenses,

    thanks
    9811801193

    1. CA Vikram Aggarwal says:

      Hello Mr. Vikas,

      First of all I must appreciate you for raising such an important topic.

      In my opinion, the law doesn’t explicitly includes or excludes research and development expenditure of any business concern from input tax credit perspective. While claiming the credit, the assessee needs to establish a genuine co-relation between the nature of expenses being incurred and its utility in the course of business as per the provisions of GST law, to the satisfaction of department.

      Having said that, it is important to highlight that such kind of issues/claims, being a bit subjective, are bound to have contradictory viewpoints and you must sit with your accountant and seek a detailed written opinion before claiming any credit on such expenses.

      Best Regards
      CA Vikram Aggarwal
      Mob – 977-397-9042

  3. opjain02 says:

    Sir,
    It is only a reproduction of SC judgment without your opinion/analysis. Kindly provide your guidance on the following points;
    1.What is your opinion on issuance on notfn No. 43/2020 dated18.5.2020 by CBIC
    during the period of COVID-19 pandemic, implemented w.e.f. 18.5.2020, the restriction on time limit for taking Transitional Credit, u/s 140, CGST Act, 2017, amended retrospectively by the Finance Act, 2020, just to plug/annul the relief given by various courts to the taxable persons.
    2 What is your opinion on. SLP filed by CBIC in the Supreme Court on 19.6.2020 : Union of India & Ors. v. Brand Equity Treaties Ltd. & Ors. (2020) 33 J.K.Jain’s GST & VR 419 & obtained Stay against the High Court judgment in the case of Brand Equity Treaties Ltd. v. Union of India (2020) 33 J.K.Jain’s GST & VR 419 (Delhi), which granted a great relief to various citizens of the country by prescribing the period of limitation of 3 years under the Limitation Act for filing Tran-1 so as to facilitate claiming Transitional Credit as on 30.6.2017, u/s 140, CGST Act, 2017.
    Om Prakash Jain 9414300730

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

April 2021
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930