Techno Waxchem Private Limited vs. The Goods And Services Tax Council And Ors

Held

The Court, in the interest of justice and considering the Division Bench judgment in Abdul Mannan Khan, disposed of the writ petition. Both the State and Central GST authorities were directed to allow the petitioner to file a corrected GSTR-1 Form manually. They were also instructed to take necessary steps after receiving the corrected forms, following the guidelines laid down in the Division Bench's order dated 31st October, 2023. However, due to the petitioner being a company and likely availing professional services, the mistake was not condoned unconditionally. The petitioner was ordered to pay a cost of Rs. 25,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee, Calcutta, within ten days and submit proof of payment along with the corrected GSTR-1 Form. This relief was granted in view of exceptional facts and circumstances.

Facts

The petitioner, Techno Waxchem Private Limited, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent GST authorities to allow them to amend their GSTR-1 Form, either manually or online, under Section 38(5) of the GST Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the mistake in filing the form was genuine and bonafide. The respondent GSTN authority argued that the petitioner had already been given one opportunity to correct a mistake and this was the second instance, suggesting the case should not be considered. The petitioner relied on a Division Bench judgment of the same High Court in Abdul Mannan Khan – Vs – The Goods and Services Tax Council & Ors., which permitted manual filing of corrected GSTR-1 forms.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be allowed to amend their GSTR-1 Form manually or online, as per Section 38(5) of the GST Act, 2017, given a prior opportunity to correct a mistake. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the mistake in filing the GSTR-1 Form was genuine and bonafide. They relied on the Division Bench judgment in Abdul Mannan Khan – Vs – The Goods and Services Tax Council & Ors., which allowed manual filing of corrected GSTR-1 forms, to support their claim for correction. Revenue/State's contention: The respondent GSTN authority argued that the petitioner had already been granted one opportunity to rectify a mistake and this was the second instance of error. They contended that the case should not be entertained under these circumstances.