Mahle Anand Thermal Systems Private Limited Thr. Head Finace Abhinay Kumar Gupta vs. Union Of Inida Thr. Secretary Ministry Of Finance Dept. Of Revenue And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Mahle Anand Thermal Systems Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court seeking to correct inadvertent errors in their GST returns (Form GSTR 1) and invoices. These errors involved incorrect GST numbers of their customers, stemming from outdated information in their SAP system. The petitioner had made multiple representations to the respondents, starting from December 13, 2021, requesting permission to rectify these errors, but these representations remained unaddressed. The respondents, Union of India and others, were represented by their counsel. The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Held
The Court directed Respondent No. 2 to decide the petitioner's representation within eight weeks from the date of the order. This decision was to be made in accordance with the law, considering the applicability of Circular dated December 29, 2017, and the judgments of the Madras High Court in Pentacle Plant Machineries Pvt. Ltd. and Sun Dye Chem. The outcome of the decision was to be communicated to the petitioner within one week of its passing. If the representation was allowed, Respondent No. 2 was to permit the petitioner to rectify the GST number within one week of that order. If the order was adverse, the petitioner was granted liberty to pursue further appropriate proceedings. The Court accepted the statement made by the revenue's counsel regarding the decision timeline.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to correct inadvertent errors in their GST returns (Form GSTR 1) and invoices, specifically regarding the GST numbers of their customers, under Section 37 of the CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 61 of the CGST Rules, 2017. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the errors were inadvertent and arose due to technical issues with their SAP system. They relied on the judgments of the Madras High Court in Pentacle Plant Machineries Pvt. Ltd. v/s. GST Council Secretariat and Sun Dye Chem v/s. Assistant Commissioner, submitting that these precedents supported their plea for correction of such bona fide errors. They sought directions to allow rectification of the GST numbers. Revenue's Contention: The respondents, through their counsel, stated that the pending representation made by the petitioner would be decided within eight weeks from the date of the court's order. No specific arguments were recorded against the petitioner's plea for correction, beyond the undertaking to decide the representation.
Sections Cited
Section 37, Rule 61
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
5-wp1174-22.doc vai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURI ICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1174 OF 2022 M/s.Mahle Anand Termal Systems Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner V/s. Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Bharat Raichandani with Mr.Mahesh Raichandani and Mr.Rishabh Jain i/b UBR Legal Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr.Jitendra B. Mishra with Ms.Sangeeta Yadav for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5. Ms. Kavita N. Solunke, AGP for the State-Respondent No.
CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA & S.M. MODAK, JJ.
DATE : 11TH FEBRUARY, 2022. (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) P.C. :-
Mr.Raichandani, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to delete the respondent nos.6 and 7 in the cause title. Leave to amend is granted. The amendment to be carried out within one week from today. Re-verification is dispensed with.
Rule. Mr.Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 5 waives service. Ms.Solunke, learned AGP for the respondent no.4 waives service. By consent of parties, the petition is heard finally. 1/3 VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Date: 2022.02.12 12:52:58 +0530
5-wp1174-22.doc
By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks an order and direction against the respondents to allow the petitioner to correct Form GSTR 1 Return and Invoice by mentioning the correct GST No. of their customer and other reliefs.
It is the case of the petitioner that there were three inadvertent errors in SAP wherein GSTN number remained to be corrected/updated from Andhra returns. The petitioner made various representations to the respondents to allow them to correct their GSTR, but of no avail. The representation is pending since 13th December, 2021. 5. Mr.Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 5 on instructions states that the said representation will be decided within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. Statement is accepted.
Mr.Raichandani, learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the judgment of the Madras High Court in case of Pentacle Plant Machineries Pvt. Ltd. v/s. GST Council Secretariat, 2021-TIOL-604-HC-MAD-GST and in case of Sun Dye Chem v/s. Assistant Commissioner, 2020-TIOL-1858-HC-MAD- GST. He submits that both the judgments would clearly apply to the 2/3
5-wp1174-22.doc facts of this case.
In view of the statement made by Mr.Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 5, we direct the respondent no.2 to decide the said representation made by the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today without fail in accordance with law after considering the applicability of the Circulars dated 26/26/2017- GST dated 29th December, 2017 and the judgment of the Madras High Court in case of Pentacle Plant Machineries Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and in case of Sun Dye Chem (supra). The order that would be passed by the respondent no.2 shall be communicated to the petitioner within one week from the date of passing of the order. If the representation made by the petitioner is allowed, the respondent no.2 shall permit the petitioner to carry out rectification in the GST number in question within one week from the date of the said order. If the order is adverse, the petitioner would be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings.
Writ Petition is allowed in aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. (S.M. MODAK, J.)
(R.D. DHANUKA, J.) 3/3
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.