Case Law Details
Pentacle Plant Machineries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Office of GST Council And Ors. (Madras High Court)
The petitioner seeks a mandamus directing the respondents to rectify the mistake in its GSTR-1 return, wherein it has, instead of the GST number of the purchaser in Andhra Pradesh, mentioned the GST number of the purchaser in Uttar Pradesh.
The revenue does not dispute the position that Forms GSTR-2 and 1A are yet to be notified. It also does not dispute the position that goods have reached the intended recipient. However, the credit claimed on the basis of accompanying invoices has been denied solely on account of the mismatch in GSTR number. It is only on 15.07.2019 when the recipient notified the petitioner of the rejection of the credit, seeking amendment of the return, and threatening legal action, that the petition came to be aware of the mismatch.
In Sun Dye Chem (supra), the error related to distribution of credit as between IGST/CGST/SGST, which posed a difficulty to the recipient in the matter of availment. I have taken a view noticing that the error arose out of inadvertence, that such bonafide mistakes must be permitted to be corrected.
To summarise, since Forms GSTR-1A and GSTR-2 (erroneously mentioned as GSTR-2A in para-17 of order dated 06.10.2020 in WP.No.29676 of 2019) are yet to be notified, the petitioner should not be mulcted with any liability on account of the bonafide, human error and the petitioner must be permitted to correct the same.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
