Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST UPDATE ON RECTIFICATION IN GSTR-1 and 3B

GST UPDATE ON RECTIFICATION IN GSTR-1 and 3B
As per CGST ACT any registered person who has furnished the details under sub-section (1) for any tax period and which have remained unmatched under section 42 or section 43 can rectify such error or omission upon discovery and shall pay the tax and interest (if any) in case there is a short payment of tax on account of such error or omission, in the return to be furnished for such tax period. Such rectification of error or omission in respect of the details furnished under sub-section (1) is allowed till furnishing of the return under section 39 for the month of September following the end of the financial year to which such details pertain, or furnishing of the relevant annual return, whichever is earlier. In the view of above provision of Act The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in its recent decision in case of Abdul Mannan Khan v. the GST Council & Ors dismissed the petition of assessee to rectify GTSR -1 after the specified time limit in the law. Here the assesse inadvertently uploaded the sale invoice in name of unregistered person instead of registered person and made an application after one and half year for rectification in GSTR-1 due to restriction of ITC availment by buyer. Court ruled “the statute has provided a period of limitation for seeking rectification and the Court cannot condone the limitation period provided for rectification of GSTR-1 Form as per Section 37 of the under CGST Act and condoning such delay would make the provision otiose and open the floodgates for similar cases”. On the contrary Madras HC has recently allowed the writ petition in case of Pentacle Plant Machineries Pvt. Ltd. v. Office of the GST Council and others. It was allowed on the reasoning that the asseesee can correct the human error in the GSTR -1. Court said that correction should be allowed for the inadvertent human error. Here the asseesee, while filing the GSTR -1 instead of GST number of purchaser in Aandhra Pradesh mentioned the GST number Uttar Pradesh. This writ petition has been allowed by Madras HC on the basis of decision in case of SUN DYE CHEM where the assessee while filing the GSTR-1 have wrongly filed the output tax as IGST instead of CGST, SGST and credit of the buyer was blocked. The error was noticed by buyer only after the last date of correction in GSTR -1 i.e. 31st march 2019. Court ruled that since the aseesee was not able to track mistake as the form GSTR -1A and and GSTR-2 was not operationalized. Therefore credit should not be blocked on the basis of inadvertent human error and the court directed permitting the petitioner to resubmit the annexures to GSTR-3B. 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. In line with the above view Delhi HC in case of BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS where there was short claimed input of assessee was amounted to Rs 923 crore and the main reason of such non detection was non-operationalization of Forms GSTR-2A, GSTR-2, and GSTR-3. The High Court also affirmed that since the validations and verification checks proposed in CGST Act, 2017 could not be practically implemented due to lack of proper IT infrastructure, the petitioner could not be denied the opportunity of correcting its mistake in reflection of input tax credit, particularly when there is no mechanism to claim refund of tax paid by them in cash. Circular prescribing rectification of mistakes in subsequent returns is contrary to the return mechanism contained in section 39 of the CGST Act, 2017. Restriction can be introduced by way of circular only if it is in conformity with the scheme of the Act and provisions contained therein. As the circular is going contrary to the scheme of the Act, the same should not be implemented. High Court allowed the petitioner to rectify GSTR-3B for the period July, 2017 to September, 2017. Based on the above case laws, we can say that authorities should also take lenient view in case of genuine and inadvertent human error by allowing the assesee to rectify the GST returns. Consequently, it will not block ITC of purchaser. If it is not done then it would be harsh on assessee as the purchaser will not pay the GST amount to supplier as credit is not available to him. But the amount has been paid in Government exchequer. Simply non- rectification of mistake for a period will deprive the taxpayer of its legitimate credit though the same has been deposited to Government. Such an approach coupled with technical glitches in portal will be very harsh for poor taxpayers in these difficult period of pandemic.
Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com