![]()
Case Summary: M/S Brothers Trade Links vs. The State Tax Officer,
Chathannoor & Others
Case No.: WP(C)
No. 34049 of 2023
Court: High
Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
Date of Order: 17th
October 2023
Summary of the Case: M/S
Brothers Trade Links, a partnership firm engaged in the distribution of
cosmetics and baby products, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India. The petition challenged the orders passed by the
State GST authorities regarding discrepancies in their GSTR-3B return for
February 2018, where an incorrect uploading led to a mismatch between GSTR-1
and GSTR-3B returns. The petitioner sought to correct this error and challenged
the validity of Circular No. 26/26/2017-GST.
Facts of the Case:
·
The petitioner, M/S Brothers Trade Links,
is a registered dealer under the CGST/SGST Act.
·
For the tax period of February 2018, the
petitioner incorrectly uploaded the taxable supply and Output Tax (OPT)
liability, which led to a discrepancy of Rs. 6,12,127.88 between the GSTR-1 and
GSTR-3B returns.
·
The petitioner received a notice in Form
GST ASMT-10, followed by GST DRC-01A, asking for the payment of the discrepancy
amount, along with assessed interest and penalties.
·
The petitioner attributed the error to a
mistake by the clerk at the Akshaya Centre, who incorrectly uploaded the
taxable turnover and OPT liability of another dealer under the petitioner’s
GSTIN.
·
The petitioner claimed that these mistakes
were rectified during the filing of GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C, and submitted this
explanation in response to the show cause notice.
Submissions by the
Petitioner:
·
The petitioner argued that the mistake was
made during the initial stage of the GST regime and should have been allowed to
be corrected.
·
They contended that Circular No.
26/26/2017-GST, which restricted the rectification of Form GSTR-3B, should be
deemed ultra vires.
·
The petitioner cited judgments from the
Gujarat High Court and Delhi High Court, where similar circulars were read
down, allowing rectification of errors for the relevant period.
Submissions by the
Respondent:
·
The learned Government Pleader,
representing the respondents, argued that the petitioner should approach the
appellate authority under Section 107 of the GST Act for redressal.
·
The respondents pointed out that the
disputed facts could not be adjudicated under the writ jurisdiction of the High
Court.
Findings and Judgment:
·
The court acknowledged that the petitioner
had a right to seek rectification of the error in GSTR-3B, especially
considering that similar provisions had been read down by other High Courts.
·
However, the court also recognized that
the issue involved disputed facts that could not be settled within its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
·
Therefore, the court disposed of the writ
petition with the liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the appellate
authority under Section 107 of the GST Act. The appellate authority was
directed to examine the petitioner’s claims and documents in accordance with
the law.
Conclusion: The
writ petition was disposed of, granting the petitioner the liberty to approach
the appellate authority to correct the uploading mistake in their GSTR-3B
return for February 2018. The court refrained from making any decision on the
merits of the case, leaving the matter to be resolved by the appropriate
authority as per the law.
Disclaimer: All the
Information is based on the notification, circular and order issued by the
Govt. authority and judgement delivered by the court or the
authority information is strictly for educational purposes and on the
basis of our best understanding of laws & not binding on anyone.
Click here
