TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, New Delhi [ 2022 (11) TMI 323 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] , the Court considered an identical issue and granted relief to the assessee, holding that interest of justice would be served if the petitioner is allowed to make the necessary correction in GSTR-1 form for January 2019. Such correction, if does not entail technical difficulties by the GSTN, may be allowed to be made online by GSTN by opening the portal for a limited period upon due communication to the petitioner and respondent no.5 and 6 as it would reflect corresponding correction in their GSTR-2A form for the relevant period. Identical issue was also considered by the High Court of Orissa in the case of M/s. Y. B. Construction Pv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enging the decision of the GSTN Authorities rejecting the request for amendment of the GSTR-1 Form for the financial year 2017-2018 on the ground that such amendment can be done only on the due date of filing of Form GSTR-1 of March 2019 (30th April, 2019). The learned Single Bench had dismissed the writ petition stating that the period of limitation for rectification has since been expired, no direction can be issued. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has approached this Court and filed the present appeal. 2. We have heard the learned advocates for the parties at length. 3. We need not labour much as to what relief the appellant would be entitled to. In the instant case, we are guided by two judgments of the Division Bench, one is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... through manual mode. Let such correction be allowed to be made within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 4. Identical issue was also considered by the High Court of Orissa in the case of M/s. Y. B. Construction Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. Union of India Ors. in W.P. (C) No.12232 of 2021 . In the said decision the Court took note of the decision of the High Court of Madras in the case of M/s. Sun Dye Chem vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) Ors. in W.P. No.29676 of 2019 . The following paragraphs of the decision in the case of M/s. Sun Dye Chem (supra) would be useful for deciding the case on hand. 17. A registered person who files a return under Section 39(1) involving intra-State outward supply is to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner s and the supplier s returns might well have been noticed and appropriate and timely action taken. The error was noticed only later when the petitioners customers brought the same to the attention of the petitioner. 20. In the absence of an enabling mechanism, I am of the view that assesses should not be prejudiced from availing credit that they are otherwise legitimately entitled to. The error committed by the petitioner is an inadvertent human error and the petitioner should be in a position to rectify the same, particularly in the absence of an effective, enabling mechanism under statute. 21. This writ petition is allowed and the impugned order set aside. The petitioner is permitted to re-submit the annexures to Form GSTR-3B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
