Rishi Fibre PVT LTD Through Its Director Sanjay Trilokchand Agrawal vs. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
Original PDF →Facts
This is a writ petition filed by Rishi Fibre Pvt. Ltd. against the State of Maharashtra and others. The petitioner sought rectification of errors in GSTR-1 returns filed by Respondent No. 2, which were causing a mismatch in the petitioner's GSTR-2A. Respondent No. 2, a GST Department authority, acknowledged the mismatch in its GSTR-1 filings and admitted that GST was paid according to invoices raised to the petitioner. The issue arose from a mismatch in GSTR-1 reporting, affecting the petitioner's GSTR-2A. The petitioner had previously represented to Respondent No. 2 for rectification. Respondent No. 3, the Central GST Department, had also issued a notice to the petitioner seeking clarification for the mismatch. The Court was dealing with a speaking to minutes order to correct the judgment.
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition by recording the statements made by the parties. Respondent No. 2 was granted 45 days to correct the mistakes in its GSTR-1 forms, acknowledging that such corrections might need to be carried out statewide. The Court directed that after rectification, Respondent No. 2 would forward all necessary documents to the Central GST Department (Respondent No. 3). Consequently, Respondent No. 3 was instructed to make its portal available to Respondent No. 2 for carrying out and uploading these corrections. The Court noted that the petitioner had put forth its prayers against Respondent No. 2, and Respondent No. 2 had acknowledged the mismatch and willingness to rectify it. The judgment also included a speaking to minutes order to correct the wording 'State GST' to 'Central GST' in a previous order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court should direct Respondent No. 2 to rectify the errors in its GSTR-1 returns to resolve the mismatch with the petitioner's GSTR-2A, as per the petitioner's representation and Respondent No. 2's admission. This issue turns on the procedural obligations of GST authorities to correct reporting errors that impact taxpayers. Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that Respondent No. 2 had admitted to the errors in its GSTR-1 filings and had expressed willingness to rectify them, and that the Court should ensure this rectification occurs to resolve the GSTR-2A mismatch. Respondent No. 2: Submitted that it had communicated to the petitioner that GST was paid along with GSTR-3B returns, but there was a mismatch in GSTR-1 due to reporting errors, which it was willing to rectify. It requested time to carry out these corrections across the State. Respondent No. 3: Was involved in seeking clarification from the petitioner regarding the mismatch.
Sections Cited
GSTR-1, GSTR-2A, GSTR-3B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
24wp (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
911 WRIT PETITION NO. 1113 OF 2024 RISHI FIBRE PVT LTD, THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SANJAY TRILOKCHAND AGRAWAL VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS …. Mr S. S. Thombre, Advocate for Petitioner Mr B. M. Dhanure, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 & 3 Mr A. N. Patale, Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 & 5
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATE : 9th August, 2024 PER COURT:
This is a disposed off Writ Petition.
Leave to carry out the amendment within a period of three weeks.
The learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties, point out that, in the third and forth sentences, in paragraph No.4 of the order dated 18/04/2024, the word ‘State 2024:BHC-AUG:8581-DB This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
24wp (2) GST’ appearing at two places, be replaced with the words ‘Central GST’, at both the places.
In view of the above, correction as above, be made
accordingly and the corrected order be uploaded. (Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) sjk This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
24wp (3) (This order dated 18/04/2024 stands corrected in view of the order dated 09/08/2024) ( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND R.M. JOSHI, JJ.)
DATE : APRIL 18, 2024 PER COURT :
Leave to correct prayer clause B to indicate the GST Department as Respondent No.
Correction be carried out.
Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides and having noticed that the Petitioner has put forth it’s prayers as against Respondent No.2, the learned Advocate representing Respondent No.2 submits on instructions as well as the affidavit in reply dated 08.04.2024, that Respondent No.2 has already communicated to the Petitioner vide communication dated 17.10.2022, that “We have duly paid the GST alongwith GSTR-3B This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
24wp (4) returns. However, there is a mismatch in our GSTR-1 due to which the same must not be reflecting to you in your 2A. Kindly note that we have paid GST according to our invoices raised to you and the error is in the GSTR-1 reporting part which shall be rectified from our end at the earliest.”
He then draws our attention to the statements set out in paragraph Nos. 6 and 17, which read as under :- “6. I say and submit that, the contents of para NO.6 are admitted fact, that the present petitioner had submitted the representation dated 22.02.2022 to Respondent No.2 and thereby requested to take necessary steps to rectify the errors/mistakes that occurred while submitting GSTR 1 forms within the stipulated period and revise GSTR 1 returns filed by the Respondent No.2 by furnishing correct invoice details as per own final tax invoices of Respondent No.2 and informed to the GST Department. However, after receiving the representation made by the petitioner dated 22.02.2022 to Respondent No.2, replied by letter dated 17.10.2022 and admits that the petitioner had paid the GST alongwith GSTR-3B returns and accepted the mismatch in GSTR-1 on the part of Respondent No.
Thereafter the Respondent No.2 has shown his willingness to rectify the errors in GSTR1. 17. I say and submit that, the contents of Para No.15 regarding the notice issued by Respondent No.3 to the Petitioner thereby seeking clarification for the mismatched in GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A returns are the matter of facts. The Respondent No.2 is ready and willing to take corrective steps to rectify the record if any.” This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
24wp (5)
The learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 prays for time of 45 days to correct the mistakes in the GSTR-1 forms since such correction has to be carried out throughout the State level. We grant him time of 45 days. Needless to state, after such rectification, Respondent No.2 shall forward all the documents to the Central GST Department/ Respondent No.
Consequently, Respondent No.3 / Central GST Department shall make it’s portal available to Respondent No.2 for carrying out and uploading the said corrections.
In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed off by recording the above statements. ( R.M.JOSHI, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) sjk This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.