Shri Ashis Kumar Paul vs. State Of Tripura And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Ashis Kumar Paul, a registered dealer under the CGST Act, 2017, proprietor of Sri Durga Rubbing Trading, inadvertently entered an incorrect figure in his annual return (Form GSTR-9) for the period July 2017 to March 2018. He had supplied exempted rubber buds, which are non-taxable items. However, a figure of Rs. 2,10,55,841.42 was mistakenly placed in the column for taxable items instead of the exempted items column. Upon detecting this error and finding no provision in the SGST Act to file a revised return, the petitioner faced a show cause notice and a demand of Rs. 27,53,052/- from the Superintendent of Taxes, Kailashahar. Despite presenting documentary evidence of the mistake and undergoing personal hearing, the demand was upheld, and the amount was displayed as outstanding on the portal. As the portal did not allow filing an appeal, the petitioner filed a writ petition.

Held

The High Court set aside the show cause notice dated 21.09.2021. The Court granted the petitioner an opportunity to upload his returns and information within two weeks from the date of the order. Upon receipt of this information, the respondents were at liberty to proceed with the matter within two weeks thereafter. The Court's reasoning implicitly acknowledged the possibility of a genuine error and the need for a procedural remedy, even in the absence of a specific provision for revised returns, by allowing the petitioner to rectify and resubmit information. The ratio decidendi is that in cases of apparent clerical errors leading to unjust demands, and where statutory appeal mechanisms are hindered by portal limitations or lack of explicit provisions for revision, the High Court may intervene to ensure a fair process and provide an opportunity for correction. The issue of whether the goods were truly exempted was not definitively decided but was implicitly accepted as a possibility warranting further examination.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to rectification of a clerical error in his GSTR-9 return, specifically regarding the classification of exempted goods as taxable goods, when no specific provision exists for filing a revised annual return under the SGST Act? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the error was a genuine mistake in data entry during the filing of the annual return (GSTR-9) and that the goods in question (rubber buds) were indeed exempted from tax. He contended that the demand raised by the Superintendent of Taxes was arbitrary and without cause, especially since the goods were non-taxable. The petitioner highlighted that the portal did not permit filing an appeal, leaving him without a legal remedy. Respondent's contention: The respondents, represented by the Addl. G.A., argued that the petitioner's monthly returns did not reflect the exemption, which should have been done if the exemption was applicable. They contended that the petitioner could have filed an appeal before the appellate authority against the show cause notice, presenting all his pleas.