Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. This entry related to the Tax Invoice No. 01/2018- 19, dated 17.01. 2019 issued by the petitioner which is at page 28 of the writ petition. As a result, the same was not reflected in the Form GSTR-2A of the recipient Eastern Coalfields Limited-Respondent-5. Instead, it got reflected in the Form GSTR-2A of MIPL-NKAS (JV). Extracts of the GSTR-2A concerning MIPL-NKAS (JV) is enclosed at page 62 of the writ petition. Petitioner realized this mistake only in June, 2021 during final settlement of accounts with the respondent No.5 Eastern Coalfields Limited. As a result of this inadvertent error, Eastern Coalfields Limited is not able to avail of the ITC in lieu thereof to the tune of Rs, 2,25,71,684.00/- whereas MIPL- NKAS (JV) in whose GSTR-2A such ITC is being reflected is not entitled to avail it. Though the error has no revenue effect but petitioners outstanding bills are being withheld by the respondent No. 5 on account of non-reflection of such ITC in their GSTR-2A. Moreover, petitioner can be made liable for suppression of facts; whereas MIPL-NKAS (JV) can be made liable for suppression of purchases concerning the said invoice and respondent No.5 Eastern Coalfields Limited is not able to avail the ITC.

The petitioner harps upon the plea of the inadvertent error which, according to him, should be allowed to be corrected by filing revised GSTR-1 for January 2019 filed in March 2019. Time limit for doing so under Section 37(3) was up to 20th October 2019. It is evident that any such correction, if allowed in GSTR-1 of the petitioner, would lead to correction by auto-population in GSTR-2A of respondent no.5. Under the provisions of Section 38(1) even respondent no.5 was required to undertake due diligence and validate entries made in the GSTR-2A and to check whether the relevant invoice is reflected in that or not. GSTR-3B of respondent no.5 is not on record to show whether it had claimed ITC of equivalent value paid by them in lieu of the tax invoice no.01/2018-19 dated 17th January 2019 issued by the petitioner. Any such correction in GSTR-1 by the petitioner would also entail auto-correction in the GSTR-2A of respondent no.6. The responsibility of filing proper forms is not only upon the supplier but also upon the purchasers and respondent no.6 in whose GSTR-2A the inadmissible ITC is reflected for the said period. Apparently, all these three parties have not undertaken due diligence at the time of filing of returns or GSTR-1 or checked the entries in GSTR-2A. Petitioner is assessed under respondent no.3 the Deputy Commissioner, State Taxes, West Circle, Ranchi while respondent no.5 is assessed under respondent no.4 the Deputy Commissioner, State Taxes, Chirkunda Circle, Dhanbad. Both fall under the jurisdiction of Joint Commissioner of Administration, Headquarters at Ranchi. Respondent no.6 is also assessed under respondent no.3.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent no.5 Eastern Coalfields submits that if such correction is allowed in the GSTR-1 of the petitioner relating to January 2019, the relevant ITC could be reflected in the GSTR-2A of the respondent no.5 and would enable it to avail the ITC to which it is entitled. He however submits that ITC availed by the Respondent no.5 has been reversed but it had entailed payment of interest thereon which Respondent no. 5 may be allowed to claim from petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent no.6 submits that respondent no.6 has neither claimed the ITC wrongly reflected in its GSTR-2A on account of wrong entry in the GSTR-1 for January 2019 by the petitioner against one tax invoice nor is entitled to claim that ITC. It is not going to lose any tax or benefit of ITC on account of such correction.

12. In the instant case it appears that on account of an inadvertent error, the entry relating to Tax Invoice No. 01/2018- 19 dated 17th January 2019 could not be reflected in the GSTR-1 filed by the petitioner against the GSTIN of Eastern Coalfields Limited (GSTIN No. 20AAACE7590E3ZX). Instead it was quoted in the GSTIN of Respondent No.6 MIPL-NKAS (JV) [GSTIN No.20AAEAM0162G1Z9] which was not the recipient of such supplies. Though, Respondent No.5 availed of such input tax credit bona fide believing that it had paid the taxes against such invoices, but on realizing the same reversed the entries in May 2022 as the same we are not reflected in his GSTR-2A return for the said period. The said entries, though reflected in the GSTR-2A of Respondent No. 6 inadvertently, were not availed by Respondent No.6 and rightly so, as it had not received any such supplies against the tax invoice in question. It further appears that the mechanism conceived under substituted Rule 59 specifically, sub rule (3) and (4) and Rule 60 (1) having not put into place by notification of form GSTR-2 and GSTR- 1A the petitioner could not discover such error in the absence of GSTR-2 being available to be filed by the recipient Respondent No.5. In the absence of notification of such forms GSTR-2 and GSTR-1A the Respondent No.6 could also not submit the relevant form GSTR-2 indicating such incorrect entries in its GSTR-2A due to incorrect entries in GSTR-1 by the petitioner. Since the mechanism provided for matching of details of inward supply furnished by a registered person or outward supply not being rightly declared by the supplier in his returns GSTR-1, not being place, such discrepancy could not be communicated to petitioner. The relevant form GST-MIS 1 and GST-MIS 2 as conceived under section 70 and 71 read with section 42 (prior to its omission under notification no.19/2022 and 18/2022 vide notification dated 28.09.2022 of CBIC) also having not been prescribed, the online mechanisms for discovery and correction of such mistake either by the supplier or by the recipient or both, could not take place. Petitioner therefore, appears to have a valid reason in not being able to rectify the entries in the GSTR-1 returns of March 2019 in the returns of September 2019 to be filed by 20th of October 2019 or the date of filing of the annual return, whichever is earlier. The error apparently came to the notice of the petitioner only during finalization of the accounts with respondent no.5 who had also by that time detected availment of ITC in lieu of the Tax Invoice No. 1/2018- 19 dated 17th January 2019, though not reflected in its GSTR-2. Petitioner approached this court immediately thereafter on 9th July 2022 seeking a direction upon the respondent GSTN to allow it to rectify returns. The detailed structured mechanism conceived under the JGST Act and the rules framed thereunder having not been put into place, the online portal did not permit such correction by any aggrieved registered person on its own. Therefore, the necessity for such an aggrieved registered person to approach this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is not in dispute that such incorrect entries in GSTR-1by Petitioner for the period January 2019 filed in March 2019 were not going to entail any additional tax impact. The rectification exercise would remain revenue neutral. Such TRAN I forms have been allowed to be filed online or manually in cases where TRAN-1 forms were not filed within the time prescribed by certain registered persons/ assessees. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are to that effect.