Case Law Details
Ahamed Usman Vs Deputy Commissioner-1 (Kerala High Court)
In the case of Ahamed Usman vs. Deputy Commissioner-1 (Kerala High Court), the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking relief concerning the revision of Form GSTR 3B for the period from August 2017, January 2018, and February 2018 for the financial year 2017-2018. The petitioner’s application for revision was submitted towards the end of January 2024. However, the court noted that Section 39(9) of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 explicitly prohibits rectification of errors or omissions in returns after a specified period.
Section 39(9) of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 states that no rectification of errors or omissions in returns shall be allowed after the thirtieth day of November following the end of the financial year to which such details pertain, or the actual date of furnishing of the relevant annual return, whichever is earlier. This provision sets a clear deadline for rectification, and any rectification beyond this period is not permitted, except as a result of scrutiny, audit, inspection, or enforcement activity by the tax authorities.
The government had extended the time for rectification in respect of returns filed from July 2017 to March 2018 until March 2019 due to initial difficulties faced by dealers under the GST Act. However, the petitioner did not file any rectification application during this extended period. Subsequently, an ASMT 10 notice was issued to the petitioner on 21.08.2020 under Section 61 of the Act.
The court observed that once an ASMT 10 notice is issued, no rectification application is permitted under Section 39(9) of the Act. Therefore, considering the statutory prescription and the delay in filing the rectification application, the court found no ground to entertain the writ petition. The petition suffered from both delay and laches, and the prayer in the writ petition was barred by the express provision of Section 39(9) of the Act.
Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition on the basis of the statutory provision and the petitioner’s failure to comply with the prescribed timeline for rectification.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for the records leading to the issue of Ext. P-1 order by the First Respondent, peruse the same, hear arguments on behalf of the Petitioner and:
A:Issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARI quashing the original of Ext. P-1 order issued by First Respondent:
B:In the alternative, issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the First Respondents to permit the Petitioner to revise the Returns in GSTR 3B where mistakes have been committed and regularise the claim of input tax credit made against CGST/SGST output liability:
C: Pass such other orders as the Petitioner may pray for and this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to grand in the circumstances of the case:
D: Award costs of the Petitioner.”
2. The petitioner has filed an application to revise Form GSTR 3B for the period from August 2017, January 2018 and February 2018 for the financial year 2017-2018 towards the end of January 2024. This application has been filed on 19.0 1.2024. Section 39(9) of the CGST/ SGST Act, 2017 specifically provides that no rectification or error or omission in respect of the details furnished under Section 39(1) of the Act shall be allowed after furnishing the return for the month of September following the end of the financial year to which such details pertains or furnishing of the relevant annual return, whichever is earlier.
3. Section 39(9) which is relevant for the purposes of the present writ petition is reproduced hereunder:-
“(9) [Where]any registered person after furnishing a return under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) or subsection (4) or sub-section (5) discovers any omission or incorrect particulars therein, other than as a result of scrutiny, audit, inspection or enforcement activity by the tax authorities, he shall rectify such omission or incorrect particulars in the return to be furnished for the month or quarter during which such omission or incorrect particulars [in such form and manner as may be prescribed], subject to payment of interest under this Act:
Provided that no such rectification of any omission or incorrect particulars shall be allowed after the [thirtieth day of November] following [the end of the financial year to which such details pertain], or the actual date of furnishing of relevant annual return, whichever is earlier.”
4. The Government, after taking into consideration the initial difficulties faced by the dealers under the provisions of the GST Act, extended the time for rectification in respect of the returns of July 2017 to March 2018 till March 2019 by Ext.R1(a) dated 31.12.2018. During this extended period the petitioner has not filed any rectification application. After March 2019, that is the extended period, ASMT 10 notice was issued to the petitioner on 21.08.2020. Once ASMT 10 was issued under Section 61 of the Act, no rectification application is permitted in view of the expressed provision of Section 39(9).
5. Considering the statutory prescription and the fact that the petitioner has filed the rectification application only in January 2024, in respect of the returns of August 2017, January, 2018 and February 2018, this court finds no ground to entertain this writ petition, which does not only suffer from delay and latches but also prayer in the writ petition is barred by the express provision of Section 39(9) of the Act.
The writ petition is hereby dismissed for the aforesaid reasons.
Author Bio
