M/S Punchok Wangtak Th Punchok Wangtak vs. Ut Of Ladakh Th Commissioner Secretary Sales Tax Department Ladakh And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Punchok Wangtak, a government contractor, inadvertently entered outward supplies in the B2C column instead of the B2B column in its GST return for the year 2024. This error prevented respondent No. 3, WAPCOS Limited, from finding the transaction in GSTR-2A. The petitioner attempted to rectify the mistake online but was unable to do so. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted representations to the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Department (respondent No. 2) on March 1, 2025, and March 8, 2025, requesting permission to correct the GSTR-1 return. These representations remained undecided, prompting the petitioner to file a writ petition before the High Court.

Held

The Court did not decide the substantive issues regarding the petitioner's right to rectification or the accessibility of the online portal. Instead, the Court disposed of the petition based on a statement made by the petitioner's counsel. The Court directed respondent No. 2, the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Department, to consider and decide the representation(s) submitted by the petitioner at the earliest, in accordance with the rules and having regard to the judgments relied upon by the petitioner. The petitioner was also directed to supply a complete set of the petition and the order to respondent No. 2 to facilitate an early decision. No specific finding was made on whether the error caused a loss of government revenue or on the user-friendliness of the online system.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to rectify an inadvertent error in furnishing details in its GST return (GSTR-1) for the year 2024, specifically the misclassification of outward supplies as B2C instead of B2B, considering it causes no loss of government revenue? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the error was inadvertent and that rectification should be allowed, citing judicial pronouncements from various High Courts that permit such corrections by the concerned authorities. The petitioner also sought directions for the online system to be more user-friendly, allowing corrections from B2C to B2B. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions from the revenue or state respondents.