The Bombay High Court in the case Star Engineers (I) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India observed and has directed the department to permit the petitioner or assessee to amend or rectify Form GSTR-1 for the period July 2021, November 2021, and January 2022, either online or manually.
The bench comprising of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain in the case observed that the bona fide, inadvertent error in furnishing details in a GST return needs to be recognized and is permitted to be corrected by the department when, in such cases, the department is aware that there is no loss of revenue to the government.
The court stated that the free play in the joint requires eminent recognition and the department needs to avoid unwarranted litigation on issues and make the system more assessee-friendly. Thus, the approach would also foster the interest of revenue in the collection of taxes.
The petitioner in the matter is engaged in designing, developing, manufacturing, and supplying a wide range of electronic components for industrial purposes. The petitioner being the regular supplier to Bajaj Auto Limited, BAL and delivers its products based on varying delivery terms as specified in the purchase orders received from BAL.
The petitioner in the plea contended that during the financial year 2021-2022, the petitioner had carried out delivery of the goods to several third-party vendors, and simultaneously, invoices were generated ‘Bill-to-Ship-to-Model’ in line with the instructions received from BAL.
The court observed that the company had correctly issued the e-invoices and credit notes in favor of BAL by appropriately citing its GST identification number, GSTIN.
However, the court stated that at the time of filing Form GSTR-1 for the period July 2021, November 2021, and January 2022, the inadvertent GSTIN of third parties to whom the shipment was delivered was reported instead of the GSTIN of BAL.
The petitioner in the plea contended that it arbitrary for the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax to reject the petitioner’s request to amend or rectify Form GSTR-1 either online or by manual means.
On the other hand, it has been contended by the department that no fault can be found in the impugned communication as the provisions of the GST Act itself would not permit the State Tax Officer to accept the request as made by the petitioner for amendment or rectification of Form GSTR-1.
The court in the case observed and has held that the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 37 read with Section 38 and sub-sections (9) and (10) of Section 39 need to be purposefully interpreted.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case stated that this court cannot read sub-section (3) of Section 37 to mean that the assessee would be prevented from placing the correct position and having accurate particulars in regard to all the details in the GST returns which is being filed by the assessee and that there would not be any scope for any bona fide or inadvertent rectification or correction. The counsel, Bharat Raichandani appeared for the petitioner. The counsel, Shruti D. Vyas represented the respondent.