Quick Summary
Introduction "To err is human" - a principle well acknowledged across legal disciplines, but one that finds nuanced application in the domain of taxation. In India's Goods and Services Tax (GST) framework, where technology-driven compliance is central to administration, inadvertent human errors can
Daily Limit Reached
You have reached your daily limit of 2 Free Articles
Subscribe to CCI PRO for unlimited access
Why Upgrade to CCI PRO?
- No Ads
- WhatsApp Broadcasts
- Daily E-Newsletter
- Unlimited Articles Access
BEST VALUE
2 YEAR PLAN
3,499
(Inclusive of GST)
1 YEAR PLAN
1,999
(Inclusive of GST)
Buy CCI PRO Now
Already a PRO member? Login here for an ad-free experience.
Yes, High Courts have permitted manual rectification of GST filings in cases of genuine clerical errors, such as those affecting Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims, to ensure substantive rights are not lost due to procedural lapses.
Yes, the Calcutta High Court has allowed rectification of GSTR-1 even after the prescribed time limit, provided the mistake was genuine and made without mala fide intent, prioritising substantive tax compliance over strict deadlines.
Courts have treated palpable and unintentional numerical errors, like a decimal misplacement in an e-way bill amount, as human mistakes and remanded matters for fresh assessment, indicating a recognition of such lapses.
Yes, the Patna High Court has permitted rectification of errors where a TDS number was mistakenly reported instead of a GSTIN, emphasising the need to avoid cascading compliance burdens.
The Bombay High Court has permitted rectification of GST returns even after the statutory deadline, especially when no revenue loss is established, showing a willingness to relax rigidity where equity demands flexibility.
Yes, the Delhi High Court has shown that writ jurisdiction can be invoked to address old compliance errors, such as rectifying a GSTR-1 return from a previous year, pending final adjudication.
CAclubindia
