In the evolving terrain of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, compliance complexities continue to challenge both taxpayers and administrators. One persistent concern is the absence of a revision mechanism in GST returns. Human errors-inevitable as they are, often translate into costly consequences, with the system offering limited scope for correction. While legal strictness is understandable in cases of fraud or willful misstatement, penalizing honest mistakes contradicts the core principles of fairness and natural justice.
This article examines how various High Courts have interpreted the law and extended relief to assessees in genuine cases of error-an approach that both respects the statutory framework and upholds equity.
The Legal Vacuum: No Provision for Return Revision
Unlike the pre-GST era where excise, VAT, or service tax returns could often be revised, the current GST regime lacks a formal mechanism for revision, particularly for returns like GSTR-3B and GSTR-1. The only available relief lies in invoking Section 161 of the CGST Act, 2017, which allows rectification of errors "apparent on the face of record." However, departmental officers have often interpreted this restrictively, refusing corrections that carry substantial tax impact-even if unintentional.
Judicial Wisdom: Courts Intervening to Prevent Injustice
In recent months, a series of landmark High Court decisions have carved a path forward, reinforcing the right to correct bona fide mistakes. Below are notable judgments:
1. M/s Vijay Bhogilal - Gujarat High Court
(2024) 12 TMI 1399 :: 2024:GujHC:70800-DB The petitioner made an error in GSTR-3B for FY 2018-19. The Court remanded the matter to the authorities and directed the Assessing Officer to allow rectification and reconsider Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims under Sections 16(5) and 16(6). The Court emphasized that the petitioner should not suffer for procedural irregularities where substantive compliance exists.
2. Jayakrishnan K.S. - Kerala High Court
(2024) 14 Centax 350 Where IGST credit was mistakenly claimed under CGST and SGST, the Court instructed revenue authorities to expeditiously consider the rectification application and restrained coercive recovery measures until then-underscoring the need to protect taxpayers during pending resolution.
3. Divya S.R. - Kerala High Court
(2024) 14 Centax 179 A misclassification of IGST as CGST and SGST led to ITC discrepancies. The Court ordered that the taxpayer's rectification application be duly considered, again favouring substance over form in honest error scenarios.
4. NRB Bearings Ltd. - Bombay High Court
(2024) 15 Centax 444 Here, a clerical error in GSTR-1 denied ITC to the recipient. Since no revenue loss was caused, the Court permitted correction, reiterating that procedural lapses should not override substantive tax rights.
5. Anvita Associates - Bombay High Court
(2024) 14 Centax 365 Sales invoices omitted from GSTR-1 resulted in customers being unable to claim ITC. Considering the error inadvertent, the Court allowed the assessee to file rectification, thereby preserving the chain of credit-a cornerstone of the GST framework.
6. Railroad Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. - Bombay High Court
(2024) 86 GSTL 202 In this case, an incorrect GSTIN entry in GSTR-1 caused mismatch issues. As the tax had already been paid, the Court held that the government faced no revenue loss and directed authorities to permit correction.
7. Kondamma Trading - Madras High Court
(2023) 12 CENTAX 108 A representation to shift ITC from one head to another in GSTR-3B was rejected by the department. The Court held that rights under Section 161 were available to the assessee and permitted rectification.
Conclusion: A Call for Balanced Reform
While the GST system aims to plug leakages and encourage accurate reporting, it must not become a trap for the compliant taxpayer. A rigid interpretation that disallows rectification, even where tax is paid and there is no malafide intent, not only burdens businesses but also contradicts the constitutional principles of fairness.
These judicial precedents reaffirm that substance must prevail over form. As jurisprudence evolves, the legislature and GSTN must consider integrating a formal return revision mechanism or at least provide robust guidelines for rectification under Section 161.
After all, tax law must operate not just as an enforcement tool-but as an instrument of justice.
CAclubindia
