HC directs dept to consider allowing petitioner to correct Form GSTR 1 Return

Mahle Anand Termal Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India  (Bombay High Court)

In this case petitioner made inadvertent errors in GSTR-1 form wherein GSTN number of the recipient of goods was mentioned incorrectly. Leading to denial of credit to the recipient. Time limit for rectification expired. Supplier made representations, however, remained unanswered. The Hon’ble High Court directed to consider the request of the assessee in light of the ruling of the Madras High court in Pentacle Plant Machineries Pvt. Ltd. v/s. GST Council Secretariat and Sun Dye Chem v/s. Assistant Commissioner .

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT

1. Raichandani, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to delete the respondent nos.6 and 7 in the cause title. Leave to amend is granted. The amendment to be carried out within one week from today. Re-verification is dispensed with.

2. Mr.Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 5 waives service. Ms. Solunke, learned AGP for the respondent no. 4 waives service. By consent of parties, the petition is heard finally.

3. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks an order and direction against the respondents to allow the petitioner to correct Form GSTR 1 Return and Invoice by mentioning the correct GST No. of their customer and other reliefs.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that there were three inadvertent errors in SAP wherein GSTN number remained to be corrected/updated from Andhra returns. The petitioner made various representations to the respondents to allow them to correct their GSTR, but of no avail. The representation is pending since 13^th December, 2021.

5. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 5 on instructions states that the said representation will be decided within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. Statement is accepted.

6. Raichandani, learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the judgment of the Madras High Court in case of Pentacle Plant Machineries Pvt. Ltd. v/s. GST Council Secretariat, 2021-TIOL-604-HC-MAD-GST and in case of Sun Dye Chem v/s. Assistant Commissioner, 2020-TIOL-1858-HC-MAD-GST. He submits that both the judgments would clearly apply to the facts of this case.

7. In view of the statement made by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 5, we direct the respondent no.2 to decide the said representation made by the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today without fail in accordance with law after considering the applicability of the Circulars dated 26/26/2017-GST dated 29^th December, 2017 and the judgment of the Madras High Court in case of Pentacle Plant Machineries Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and in case of Sun Dye Chem (supra). The order that would be passed by the respondent no.2 shall be communicated to the petitioner within one week from the date of passing of the order. If the representation made by the petitioner is allowed, the respondent no.2 shall permit the petitioner to carry out rectification in the GST number in question within one week from the date of the said order. If the order is adverse, the petitioner would be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings.

8. Writ Petition is allowed in aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.