GST : Where assessee filed a GSTR 1 return, mistakenly uploading duplicate invoices, upon receipt of an intimation regarding said discrepancies, assessee replied thereto by stating that it was an inadvertent error and that correct details were contained in assessee’s GSTR 3B return and also certifies that relevant purchasers stated that they had availed of input tax credit (ITC) by excluding duplicate invoices, therefore in view of documents submitted by assessee order imposing tax liability was to be set aside and matter was required to be reconsidered so as to ascertain whether purchasers indeed did not avail of excess input tax credit on basis of duplicate invoices
[2024] 161 taxmann.com 234 (Madras)
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
A. Ansari Abu Agencies
v.
Superintendent of GST and Central Excise*
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
W.P. NO. 8264 OF 2024
W.M.P. NOS. 9217 & 9218 OF 2024
MARCH 27, 2024
Demands And Recovery – Mismatch between Returns – Duplicate Invoices – Period from 2017 to 2018 – Petitioner-assessee filed a return in GSTR 1 in relation to outward supplies in assessment period 2017-18 – While doing so, assessee asserts that an error was committed by providing details pertaining to same invoice – Upon receipt of an intimation regarding said discrepancies, assessee replied thereto by stating that it was an inadvertent error and that correct details were contained in assessee’s GSTR 3B return more than once – A similar reply was also sent upon receipt of show cause notice and in addition, assessee obtained certificates from each of relevant purchasers of goods and in those certificates, purchasers stated that they had availed of input tax credit (ITC) by excluding duplicate invoices and that this was reflected in their GSTR 2A returns – However, tax liability had been imposed on assessee for an inadvertent error although no revenue loss was suffered on such account HELD: Assessee’s explanation was disregarded as unacceptable by revenue merely on ground that assessee did not amend GSTR 1 statement on or before March 2019 – Therefore in view of documents submitted by assessee order imposing tax liability was to be set aside and matter was required to be reconsidered so as to ascertain whether purchasers indeed did not avail of excess input tax credit on basis of duplicate invoices [Section 75 of Central Goods And Services Tax Act, 2017/Tamil Nadu Goods And Services Tax Act, 2017] [Paras 6 and 7] [In favour of assessee]
The Madras High Court’s decision to set aside the tax liability imposed on the assessee, due to mistakenly uploading duplicate invoices in GSTR-1, underscores the judiciary’s role in recognizing genuine errors within the ambit of complex tax compliance systems. This judgment highlights the importance of fairness and reasonableness in the administration of tax laws, especially in an era where compliance largely depends on digital submissions, which are prone to human error. By focusing on the intent and rectifying actions of the assessee, rather than strictly adhering to procedural lapses, the court has shown a pragmatic approach to justice. This decision not only provides relief to the assessee but also sets a precedent for similar cases, encouraging a more understanding and less punitive approach towards unintentional non-compliance. It reaffirms the principle that the tax system should aim to aid compliance and rectification, rather than penalize honest mistakes, thereby fostering a more cooperative relationship between taxpayers and the authorities- JSPCO
