Nrb Bearings LTD. Mumbai vs. The Commissioner CGST And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, NRB Bearings Ltd., filed a writ petition seeking permission to rectify its GSTR-1 return for the financial year 2017-2018. The petitioner approached the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Thane, to amend invoice details in its GSTR-1 for December 2019, relating to the 2017-18 period. The petitioner stated that its job workers confirmed they had not availed input tax credit (ITC) for the disputed transactions. The petitioner also received confirmation from the Central Jurisdictional Commissionerate that no proceedings had been initiated against Bajaj Auto Ltd. (respondent no. 4) concerning ITC disallowance due to mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A. The petitioner obtained a Chartered Accountant's certificate confirming GST discharge on the disputed transactions, which was shared with respondent no. 4 without a response. The petition highlights the absence of a provision for rectifying bonafide errors in GSTR-1 and claims no revenue implication.
Held
The Court allowed the petition, holding that the petitioner is permitted to rectify its GSTR-1 for the period 2017-18. The Court reasoned that the present situation is covered by the principles laid down in M/s. Star Engineers (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. In that case, the Court had observed that in instances of bonafide errors in filing returns, where no loss of revenue is caused to the government, technicalities should not prevent rectification of inadvertent errors that could have a cascading effect. The Court found the petitioner's situation analogous to the facts in the cited precedent. Regarding prayer clause (b), concerning the eligibility of respondent no. 4 to avail ITC, all contentions of the parties were expressly kept open, and the petitioner was granted liberty to make an application in that regard as permissible in law. The Court did not decide the issue of ITC eligibility for respondent no. 4.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus to allow rectification of bonafide errors in its GSTR-1 return for the financial year 2017-2018, considering the absence of a specific provision for such rectification under the CGST Act and Rules, and the alleged lack of revenue implication. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that there is no provision under the CGST Act or CGST Rules for rectifying bonafide errors made in GSTR-1. They argued that since no action was taken on their application to correct the error and there is no revenue implication, they are legitimately entitled to the relief sought. They relied on the decision in M/s. Star Engineers (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors., which held that technicalities should not impede rectification of bonafide errors causing no loss to the revenue. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (The Commissioner of State Tax, The Deputy Commissioner, SCST, Thane, and State of Maharashtra).
Sections Cited
CGST Act, CGST Rules
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Oral Judgment : (Per G.S. Kulkarni, J.)
Rule. Returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, heard finally.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying for the following reliefs: “(a) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records of the petitioners’ case and after examining the legality and validity thereof, allow the petitioners to rectify the GSTR-I for the period 2017-2018; 14 February, 2024 2024:BHC-AS:7590-DB
WP10771_2023.DOC (b) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare that respondent no. 4 is eligible to avail ITC to the extent of Rs.64,36,188/- denied to them due to clerical error by petitioner.”
The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner approached the juri ictional officer/respondent no. 2 to allow the petitioner to alter/amend the invoice details pertaining to F.Y. 2017-18 in GSTR-1 for the month of December, 2019. The letter is addressed by the petitioner to respondent no. 2 to provide the petitioner of an option of amending the said invoices.
It is the case of the petitioner that during the pendency of the said application, the petitioner received confirmation from the job workers confirming that they have not availed the input tax credit. On 6 January, 2022, an application was filed before the Central Juri ictional Commissionerate/respondent no. 4 in relation to the disallowance of credit to respondent no. 4 on account of the mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR- 2A. It is stated that by communication received by the petitioner on 27 January, 2022, the Central Juri ictional Commissionerate informed the petitioner that no proceedings had been initiated against respondent no. 4, in this regard as also no communication was received from the State Juri ictional Commissionerate.
The petitioner has also referred to the guidelines which were issued by the State of Maharashtra in its Circular No. 02A of 2022 on the issues arising 14 February, 2024
WP10771_2023.DOC from ITC claims, in pursuance of which, it is contended that on 9 May, 2022, the petitioner obtained a certificate from its Chartered Accountant, certifying that the petitioner had duly discharged GST on the transaction in dispute. The said certificate was stated to be shared by the petitioner with respondent no. 4 on 23 August, 2022, however, no response was received. It is in these circumstances, the present petition is filed praying for the reliefs as noted hereinabove.
The contention of the petitioner that there is no provision either under the CGST Act or under the CGST Rules for rectification of bonafide errors made in GSTR-1. It is contended that there is also no revenue implication in that regard. It is on such premise, as no action was taken on the application of the petitioner so as to permit the petitioner to correct the bonafide error, the petitioner would contend that it is legitimately entitled for reliefs as prayed for.
In support of the above contentions, the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision in the case of M/s. Star Engineers (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. dated 14 December, 2023 wherein similar issues had fell for consideration of this Court. The court considering the provisions of the CGST Act had observed that in cases where there was a bonafide error in filing of the return and when there was no loss of revenue caused to the Government/exchequer, the technicalities on any legitimate rectification ought 14 February, 2024
WP10771_2023.DOC not to come in the way of the assessee, so as to suffer an inadvertent error, which would have a cascading effect. In our opinion, the present situation as brought before the Court is certainly covered as discussed by the Court in Star Engineers (I) Pvt. Ltd. (supra).
For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the petition needs to be allowed. We accordingly allow the petition by permitting the petitioner to rectify the GSTR-1 for the period 2017-18. Ordered accordingly.
Insofar as prayer clause (b) is concerned, all contentions of the parties are expressly kept open. If the petitioner intends to make an application in relation to prayer clause (b), he is entitled to do so as may be permissible in law.
Disposed of in the above terms. No costs. (FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI , J.) 14 February, 2024 Signed by: Vidya S. Amin Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 15/02/2024 19:18:35
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.