Rectification of GSTR 1 denied for error by the supplier in mentioning the details of the recipient in GSTR 1 on account of the limitation period prescribed in section 39(9)

[Rachit Agarwal]

M/S YOKOHAMA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE STATE OF TELANGANA - 2022 (11) TMI 392 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT

Facts

1. Petitioner has been submitting its GST returns timely. During the period from January, 2018 to August, 2018 it had shown supplies to one of its distributors M/s. Bade Miyan Wheels.
2. However, in the GSTR-1 form submitted by the petitioner for the aforesaid period, the details of the distributor were wrongly mentioned.
3. It was a bona fide mistake whereby the name of the distributor was mentioned as M/s. Hyderabad Service Station instead of M/s. Bade Miyan Wheels.
4. Because of the aforesaid error, the distributor – M/s. Bade Miyan Wheels, is not able to utilise the input tax credit for the said purpose which is being reflected in the GSTR-2A forms of M/s.Hyderabad Service Station

Hon’ble Court Observations and Order

1. Thus, Supreme Court was of the view that the law provides for rectification of errors and omissions in the specified manner. Beyond the statutorily prescribed period, an assessee cannot be permitted to carry out rectification which would inevitably affect obligations and liabilities of other stakeholders because of the cascading effect in the electronic records.
2. Supreme Court considered the mechanism provided by Section 39(9) of the CGST Act and thereafter took the view that allowing the assessee to carry out rectification of errors and omissions beyond the statutorily prescribed period would lead to complete uncertainty and collapse of the tax administration.
3. While delivering the above judgment, Supreme Court took note of the fact that GSTR-2A form for rectification of omissions or incorrect particulars became operational from September, 2018.
4. We are not inclined to accede to the request made by the petitioner