Madras HC: Error in GSTR-1 Corrected in GSTR-3B, Tax Liability Set Aside

By CA Sandeep Kanoi Goods and Services Tax Judiciary April 17, 2024 1 comment

TaxGuru Citation: 2024 taxguru.in 2056
Case Name: A. Ansari Abu Agencies Vs Superintendent of GST and Central Excise (Madras High Court)
Appeal Number: Only available for paid members
Date of Judgement/Order: Only available for paid members
Courts: All High Courts, Madras High Court

Upgrade to Basic or Premium to download.

Already Upgraded? Log in.

A. Ansari Abu Agencies Vs Superintendent of GST and Central Excise (Madras High Court)

The Madras High Court recently rendered a significant judgment in the case of A. Ansari Abu Agencies Vs Superintendent of GST and Central Excise. The court addressed a crucial issue concerning tax liability arising from discrepancies between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3b returns.

The crux of the matter lies in the inadvertent error made by the petitioner while filing GSTR-1, wherein details of the same invoice were provided more than once. Despite rectifying this error in the GSTR-3b return and providing certificates from purchasers confirming non-availment of input tax credit (ITC) on duplicate invoices, the petitioner faced tax liability.

The court critically examined the impugned order, highlighting that the petitioner’s explanation was disregarded solely because the GSTR-1 statement was not amended before March 2019. However, considering the evidence submitted, the court deemed it necessary to reassess whether purchasers indeed did not claim excess input tax credit.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

An order dated 17.12.2023 pertaining to the mismatch between the petitioner’s GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B returns is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. As a registered person under applicable GST enactments, the petitioner filed a return in GSTR 1 in relation to outward supplies in the assessment period 2017-18. While doing so, the petitioner asserts that an error was committed by providing details pertaining to the same invoice more than once. Upon receipt of an intimation regarding such discrepancies, the petitioner replied thereto by stating that it was an inadvertent error and that the correct details are contained in the petitioner’s GSTR 3B return. A similar reply was also sent upon receipt of the show cause notice. In addition, the petitioner obtained certificates from each of the relevant purchasers of goods. In those certificates, the purchasers stated that they had availed of input tax credit (ITC) by excluding the duplicate invoices and that this is reflected in their GSTR 2A returns. The impugned order was issued in these facts and circumstances.