Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. As regards Respondent No.4, Mr. Sarda, on instructions, states have been served some time in May 2024.

2. Petitioner has filed GST returns within time but after some time in December 2023, realised that there were certain errors with no loss of Revenue to the State. The time prescribed under Section 39(9) of CGST Act states the rectification of such omission or incorrect particulars have to be made on or before NC: 2025:KHC:44359 HC-KAR 30th day of November, following the end of the financial year to which such details pertained. Mr. Sarda states that because they had missed the deadline, Petitioner made a request in writing to the concerned authorities to permit rectification which has not been granted.

4. Respondents shall file an affidavit-in-reply and serve a copy thereof upon Petitioner's Advocate by 19th July 2024.

2. There is no dispute that there were certain errors with no loss of revenue to the State in the GST returns filed. Paragraphs 7 to 23 of Star Engineers (I) Pvt Ltd. Vs. Union of India & ors. reads as under:

"7. Mr. Raichandani, learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that it was arbitrary for the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax to reject the request of the petitioner to amend or rectify the Form GSTR-1 filed by the petitioner for the period July 2021, November 2021 and January 2022, either Online or by manual means. It is contended that it is not in dispute and as clear from the impugned letter, that there was no loss of revenue to the Government exchequer, however, on a pure technical ground the provisions of GSTR Portal prohibited any adjustment post the due date, the petitioner's request has been rejected. It is submitted that such technicalities ought not to defeat the requirement of justice. In support of his submissions, Mr. Raichandani has placed reliance on the decision of Madras High Court in M/s.

13. In our opinion, the proviso ought not to defeat the intention of the legislature as borne out on a bare reading of sub- section (3) of Section 37 and sub-section (9) of Section 39 in the category of cases particulars in filing of returns, accompanied with the fact that there is when there is a bonafide and inadvertent error in furnishing any in permitting the correction of mistake. Any contrary interpretation of sub- section (3) of Section 37 read with sub-sections (9) and (10) of Section 39 would lead to absurdity and/or bring a regime that GST returns being maintained by the department having incorrect particulars become sacrosanct, which is not what is acceptable to the GST regime, wherein every aspect of the returns has a cascading effect. This is necessarily required to be borne in mind when considering the cases of inadvertent human errors creeping into the filing of GST returns.

- 17 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44359 HC-KAR a system to be understood and operate perfectly, it certainly takes some time. The provisions of law are required to be alive to such considerations and it is for such purpose the substantive provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 37 and sub-section (9) of Section 39 minus the proviso, have permitted rectification of inadvertent errors.

21. We may also observe that the situation like in the present case, was also the situation in the proceedings before the different High Courts as noted by us above, wherein the errors of the assessee were inadvertent and bonafide. There was not an iota of an illegal gain being derived by the assessees. In fact, the scheme of the GST laws itself would contemplate correct data to be available in each and every return of tax, being filed by the assessees. Any incorrect particulars on the varied aspects touching the GST returns would have serious cascading effect, prejudicial not only to the assessee, but also to the third parties.