Petitioner Cannot Be Permitted to Rectify the Return Beyond the Statutory Time Limit Prescribed Under the GST Act | HC

Case Details: Bar Code India Ltd. v. Union of India - [2024] 169 taxmann.com 108 (Punjab & Haryana)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Sanjeev Prakash Sharma & Sanjay Vashisth, JJ.
• Simarpal Sawhney & Rahul Makkar, Advs., for the Petitioner.
• Ajay Kalra, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, a limited company, was registered with GSTIN. During the filing of the GSTR-1 return, the petitioner committed an inadvertent error by mentioning the point of sale as Mumbai instead of Delhi and also mentioned the GST number of the receiver/purchaser of Mumbai instead of the GST number of the purchaser in Delhi. The purchaser refused to clear the other invoices of the petitioner. The petitioner sought to rectify the error by writing a letter to the concerned authority. However, the authority rejected the request for rectification of the errors and it filed writ petition.

High Court Held

The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the time limitation, as provided under Section 37(1) and 37(3) of the Act, is linked directly and proportionately to Section 16(4) of the Act. The correction in the corresponding GSTR-1 is permissible in terms of the timeline as specified in Section 16(4) of the Act. As soon as the supplier files GSTR-1 mentioning the invoice amount, place of sale and the GSTR Number, the system auto-generates GSTR-2A of the recipient of the supplier, which is the basis for claiming input tax credit through GSTR-3B. If there is a correction in the corresponding GSTR-1 within the timeline, ITC would be permissible in terms of the timeline specified.

Therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to rectify the return beyond the statutory time limit prescribed under the GST Act. Even if the petitioner is allowed to rectify the return now, there will not be an automatic benefit of input tax credit, which the purchaser can claim.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Union of India v. Bharati Airtel Ltd. [2022] 4 SCC 328 (para 20) followed.
• Star Engineers (I) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [W.P. No. 15368 of 2023, dated 14-12-2023] (Bom.) (para 20) distinguished.

List of Cases Referred to

• Waterhouse Coopers Private Limited v. CIT (2012) 11 SCC 316 (para 5)
• Union of India (UOI) v. Bharti Airtel Limited and others (2022) 4 SCC 328 (para 9)
• Sun Dye Chem v. Asstt. Commissioner v. Asstt. Commissioner (ST) and others 2020 TIOL 1858 (para 16)
• Shiva Jyoti Construction v. The Chairperson, Central Board of Excise & Customs and others MANU/OR/0522/2023 wherein the Court observed that if no prejudice has been caused to the department (para 16).