M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGST

Held

The Court granted the petitioner liberty to challenge the appellate order dated July 21, 2025, by availing the remedy provided under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's claims regarding the clerical error, the credit note, or the amendment of the GSTR-1 return. The reasoning for this decision was that the petitioner had sought permission to pursue the statutory remedy available under Section 112 of the CGST Act. The writ petition was disposed of with this liberty granted. The specific issues raised by the petitioner were not decided on their merits by the High Court in this writ proceeding.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s B.K. Agency, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging an order dated July 21, 2025, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & CX, Patna. This appellate order upheld a demand of tax raised by the Assistant Commissioner, Central GST & Central Excise Division, Begusarai, through an order dated December 11, 2023. The petitioner sought to quash the appellate order, arguing it failed to consider a clerical and arithmetical error. They also sought directions to recognize a credit note issued in January 2026 as a valid rectification for an inadvertent error in 2018 regarding input tax reversal, or to permit amendment of their GSTR-1 return. Additionally, they sought confirmation on whether any input tax credit was availed by recipients based on their erroneous GSTR-1 filing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not considering the clerical and arithmetical error committed by the petitioner in their GSTR-1 return for the year 2018, thereby upholding the tax demand. (This issue pertains to the interpretation and application of provisions related to correction of errors in GST returns and the scope of appellate review). 2. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to issue a credit note in January 2026 to rectify an inadvertent error made in 2018, or be allowed to amend their GSTR-1 return. 3. Whether the respondents should confirm if any input tax credit was availed by registered recipients based on the petitioner's erroneous GSTR-1 filing. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the appellate order failed to consider a clerical and arithmetical error. They sought to rectify this error through a credit note or by amending their GSTR-1 return. They also sought clarity on the input tax credit availed by recipients. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments made by the revenue or state respondents.