Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6.10. Being thus the gamut of rectifying the mistake/error apparent on the face of the record, under the scheme of the GST statutes the returns are self-assessed and thereby it can be comprehended within the meaning of "assessment". The figures and facts due to human error reflected in such returns and discovered subsequently could be rectified as "clerical or arithmetical error, arising from any accidental slip or omission".

6.11. It may be apposite to have reference to Aberdare Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 4122 = (2024) 89 GSTL 6 (Bom) wherein the following observations made in Star Engineers (I) Private Limited Vrs. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2682 are quoted, while allowing the petition:

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 when there is a bona fide and inadvertent error in furnishing any particulars in filing of returns, accompanied with the fact that there is no loss of revenue whatsoever in permitting the correction of such 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.

15. As a result of the above discussion, in our opinion, the State Tax officer ought to have granted the petitioner's request to rectify/amend the Form GSTR- 1 for the period July 2021, November 2021 and January 2022, either through Online or manual means.

16. We also find that the petitioner's reliance on the decision as noted by us is quite apposite. In Sun Dye Chem Vrs. Assistant Commissioner, (2021) 84 GSTR 237 (Mad) = 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 28156, learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court considered a similar case wherein an error was committed by the petitioner in filing of details relating to credit. The error was to the effect that what should have figured in the CGST/SGST column was inadvertently reflected in the IGST column. It was not the case of the department that the error was deliberate and was intended to gain any undue benefit by the petitioner and in fact, by reason of the error, the customers of the petitioner were denied credit which they claim to be legitimately entitled to. It was also an error which was not initially noted by the petitioner, and on account of the error, the customers of the petitioner would be denied credit which they claimed to be legitimately entitled to, owing to the fact that the credit stands reflected in the wrong column. It is in these circumstances, after examining the relevant provisions which we have already discussed, the learned Single Judge observed that in the absence of an enabling mechanism, the assessee should not be prejudiced from availing credit which they are otherwise legitimately entitled to. The Court observed that an error committed by the petitioner is an inadvertent human error and the petitioner should not be prevented from rectifying the same and accordingly, allowed the petition.

2. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment which is, in fact, just and fair, as there is no loss of revenue. Hence, the present special leave petition is dismissed.

3. The petitioner, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, must re-examine the provisions/timelines fixed for correcting the bona fide errors. Time lines should be realist as lapse/defect invariably is realized when input tax credit is denied to the purchaser when benefit of tax paid is denied. Purchaser is not at fault, having paid the tax amount. He suffers because he is denied benefit of tax paid by him. Consequently, he has to make double payment. Human errors and mistakes are normal, and errors are also made by the Revenue. Right to correct mistakes in the nature of clerical or arithmetical error is a right that flows from right to do business and should not be denied unless there is a good justification and reason to deny benefit of correction. Software limitation itself cannot be a good justification, as software are meant ease compliance and can be configured. Therefore, we exercise our discretion and dismiss the special leave petition.