Department was directed to enable petitioner to amend GSTR-1

Case Title: Y. B. Constructions (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India

Court: High Court of Orissa

Petition No.: W.P.(C) No.12232 of 2021

Category of Dispute: Input Tax Credit (ITC)

Date of Judgement: 22 February 2023

Relevant Sections: Rule 59, Rule 60, Section 37 of CGST Act, 2017

Facts of the Case

[Para 1-3]

• The petitioner Y. B. Constructions (P.) Ltd. sought permission to rectify its GSTR-1 returns for FYs 2017–18 and 2018–19.
• The returns were erroneously filed as B2C instead of B2B for dates including 16 October 2017, 25 November 2017, 30 January 2018, and 30 March 2019.
• The mistake was discovered only when the principal contractor refused ITC due to incorrect invoice classification.
• Despite multiple representations, the GST authorities did not permit correction, stating that the statutory deadline had lapsed (13 April 2019).

Questions in Consideration

[Para 1, 4]

• Whether the petitioner can be allowed to manually rectify GSTR-1 to change invoice classification from B2C to B2B after the statutory deadline, to enable the principal contractor to avail ITC.

Observations of the Court

[Para 5-6]

• The Court noted that allowing such correction would cause no loss to the Revenue and would only correct a procedural error.
• The ITC would be legitimately available to the principal contractor; hence, denying the correction would unfairly prejudice the petitioner.
• The Court relied on the Madras High Court’s judgment in Sun Dye Chem v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), where similar relief was granted under comparable circumstances.

Judgement of the Court

[Para 7-8]

• The Court allowed the petitioner to resubmit corrected GSTR-1 forms manually for the relevant periods.
• Directed the GST Department to accept such manual submissions and facilitate upload to the GST portal.
• The entire process was to be completed within four weeks.
• Writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Between Fine Lines

This case affirms that genuine clerical errors in GST filings should not override the substantive right to claim ITC. Where the error is procedural and causes no tax loss, courts can permit rectification beyond statutory deadlines. The High Court directed manual filing of corrected returns to ensure substantive justice, aligning with prior judicial precedents.

Summary of Referred Cases

Takeaway

“A Procedural Slip Should Not Sink a Substantive Right to ITC”