Jubil Circuti INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Jabil Circuit India Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court seeking directions against respondents 2 and 3. The petitioner sought to rectify an inadvertent mistake in their GSTR-1 returns for the periods February 2018 to June 2018 and October 2018. The mistake involved mentioning an incorrect place of supply (Tamil Nadu instead of Puducherry). The petitioner had made representations to the authorities on July 8, 2021, and July 20, 2021, which remained pending. The Court noted a similar matter decided in Writ Petition No. 1174 of 2022.
Held
The Court directed respondent no.4 (the State) to decide the petitioner's representations, made on July 8, 2021, and July 20, 2021, within eight weeks from the date of the order. This decision was to be made in accordance with the law, considering the judgment of the Madras High Court in Pentacle Plant Machineries Pvt. Ltd. v/s. GST Council Secretariat and the applicability of Circular No. 26/26/2017 GST dated December 29, 2017. If the representations were allowed, respondent no.4 was to permit the petitioner to rectify the GSTR-1 returns within one week of that order. If the order was adverse, the petitioner was at liberty to file appropriate proceedings. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the ultimate allowance of rectification was contingent on the respondent's decision.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to rectify an inadvertent mistake in mentioning the incorrect place of supply (Tamil Nadu instead of Puducherry) in their GSTR-1 returns for specific periods (February 2018 to June 2018 and October 2018)? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the mistake was inadvertent and sought permission to rectify it. They relied on their representations made on July 8, 2021, and July 20, 2021, which were pending. They also implicitly relied on the Court's previous order in an identical matter (Writ Petition No. 1174 of 2022). Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue or state respondents regarding the petitioner's contention.
Sections Cited
Section 226, Section 26/26/2017 GST
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
3-wp-1167.22.doc vai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURI ICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1167 OF 2022 Jabil Circuit India Private Limited ...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 for the Respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 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. :-
Rule. Mr.Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 waives service. Ms.Solunke, learned AGP for the respondent no.4 waives service. By consent of parties, the petition is heard finally.
By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks an order and direction against the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to allow the petitioner to rectify inadvertent mistake in mentioning incorrect place of supply 33 - Tamil Nadu in stead of 34 – Puduchery in Form GSTR1 for the period from February, 2018 to June, 2018 and October 2018. 3. This Court in an identical matter passed an order in Writ 1/2 VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL ANANDRAO IDHOL Date: 2022.02.12 12:57:02 +0530
3-wp-1167.22.doc of India & Ors. and has directed the authority to consider the representation made by the petitioner. In this case, the representations are made by the petitioner on 8th July, 2021 and 20th July, 2021. The said representations are still pending.
We direct the respondent no.4 to decide those representations within eight weeks from today in accordance with law after considering 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 applicability of the Circular bearing no. 26/26/2017 GST dated 29th December, 2017. The order that would be passed by the respondent no.4 shall be communicated to the petitioner within one week from the date of passing the order. If the representations made by the petitioner are allowed, the respondent no.4 shall permit the petitioner to carry out rectification in the GSTR-1 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.) 2/2
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.