TITLE : Star Engineers Pvt. Ltd v Union of India
CITATION : WP No 15368 of 2023
CORAM : Hon’ble justice G.S Kulkarni & Hon’ble justice Jitendra Jain
DATE: 14th December, 2023
INTRODUCTION :
A writ was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge a communication issued by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax whereby an application was filed by the petitioner for seeking approval to modify Form GSTR-1 for the financial year 2021-2022.
FACTS :
The petitioner is engaged in designing, developing, manufacturing and supplying wide range of electronic components for industrial purpose. The petitioner had carried out delivery of the goods to several third party vendors and simultaneously issued invoices. The petitioner is a regular supplier of Bajaj Auto Limited (BAL). There was an error made during filing the form GSTR -1. The petitioner contends that BAL was made aware of such error and the correction was shown in GSTIN-1 form. However, the invoices submitted in favour of BAL did not appear in BAL’s form. The petitioner approached the Deputy commissioner of State Tax and requested the petitioner to rectify Form GSTR-1 to resolve the issue. The petitioner’s request was rejected.
COURT’S ANALYSIS
The court relied on Section 37, 38 and 39 of the CGST/MGST, 2017. The sections talk about furnishing details of outward, inward supplies along with details of return goods.
Section 37 talks about the returns from outward supplies of goods. Section 37(3) of the act states that if there are any error or omission in the return. Such error or omission can be rectified in the manner prescribed. Section 38 provides for the returns from inward supplies. Section 38(3) provides that the rectification on inward supplies should be communicated to the supplier. The section also provides for rectification of error under section 37(3). Section 39 provides for furnishing of returns under which it is clearly provided that a return is required to be furnished electronically indicating the inward and outward supplies of goods and services or both, input tax credit availed, tax payable, tax paid or such other particulars in such form and manner, and within such time, as may be prescribed.
The court held that Section 37 cannot be interpreted in a manner that it would prevent the assessee from rectifying the mistakes.
The court held that “Any inadvertent error which had occurred in filing of the returns, once is permitted to be rectified, any technicality not making a window for such rectification, ought not to defeat the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 37”
A bonafide, inadvertent error in furnishing details in GST return forms should be recognized and permitted to be corrected.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran
