SAG Infotech Official Tax Blog Big Discount for Tax Experts

Supply to Mahindra Logistics, Bombay HC Permits Taxpayer to Rectify GSTR-1 Filings

Bombay HC’s Order for Anvita Associates

Overview of GSTR-1

Recently the Bombay High Court addressed issues connected to GST returns in the case of Anvita Associates vs. Union of India. The applicant asks for relief for the inadvertent errors in GSTR-1 filings, especially following the supply to Mahindra Logistics. The decision of the court has permitted the amendment of the error and addressed the Rs 27,05,105 dispute with Mahindra Logistics.

Comprehensive Examination

The applicant argued that the shortfall in the payment via Mahindra Logistics was due to the inadvertent omission of 14 sales invoices in GSTR-01 filings. Mahindra Logistics despite clarifying has ignored payment directing to the legal petition. The precedent set in the Star Engineers case is been acknowledged by the court underscoring the requirement to acknowledge inadvertent errors and permit amendment if there is no loss of revenue to the government.

Read Also: Summary of Latest GST Changes Effective from 1st Oct 2023

The court recommended the applicant file a rectification application for GSTR-01, either online or manually within 4 weeks. The same method is in line with the decision of the Star Engineers furnishing a legal avenue for the applicant to ease the error in filing and address the payment issue with Mahindra Logistics.

Closure:-

The decision of the Bombay High Court in the Anvita Associates case sets a precedent for correcting errors in GST filings. Taxpayers who see identical issues can ask for rectification within the legal framework. This judgment highlights the importance of acknowledging genuine errors and solving issues between parties, assuring a fair and just application of GST rules.

Case TitleAnvita Associates Vs Union of India
Case Number901-WP-602-2024.DOC
Date11.01.2024
Petitioner byMr. Deepak Bapat, Sonali Bapat
Respondent byMs. Shruti D. Vyas, Ms. P. J. Gavhane
Bombay High CourtRead Order
Exit mobile version