In the present case, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court addressed the issue that whether the GSTR-9 annual return for the FY 2017-18 could be completely disregarded by the adjudicating authority and demand could be passed thereon without considering the GSTR-9 filed by the assessee.
The appellant, Ankit Kumar Aggarwal, made errors in GSTR-3B filings from October 2017 to March 2018 by omitting input and output cess. These discrepancies were later corrected in the GSTR-9 annual return. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court ruled that the adjudicating authority must consider GSTR-9 and not dismiss such errors if they are subsequently corrected.
The Hon'ble High Court observed that two crucial aspects warranted sending the matter back to the adjudicating authority:
1. The Hon’ble Court recognized that GSTR-9, filed within the extended deadline due to COVID-19 notifications, holds importance and should be reviewed to reflect the true tax liability.
2. The appellant's claim that the error was revenue-neutral (i.e., no loss to the tax authorities) was also acknowledged by the court, supporting the need for a reassessment.
The Hon’ble High Court directed the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax to reconsider the submissions, provide a personal hearing, and make a fresh decision.
W&B Comments: This ruling highlight the growing judicial recognition of rectifiable GST filing errors. It reinforces the importance of accurate reconciliation between GSTR-1, GSTR-3B, and GSTR-9. Courts have consistently allowed taxpayers to correct mistakes in initial filings, focusing on substantive justice over procedural lapses. This trend reinforces the need for businesses to properly reconcile their monthly returns and file the GSTR-9 appropriately. In recent cases, courts have emphasized the importance of allowing corrections in GST filings when discrepancies arise between GSTR-1, GSTR-3B, and GSTR-9. Hon’ble Madras High Court in Abhi Technologies[1] directed the refund of IGST despite errors in GSTR-3B, stressing that procedural mistakes should not deny legitimate export incentives. In the Amarjyothi Carrying Corporation,[2] the Hon’ble High Court emphasized that errors in GSTR-1, which were correctly reported in GSTR-3B and GSTR-9 (annual return), should be reconsidered by the authorities.
In line with this approach, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court’s observation in the present case may offer relief to businesses that have made genuine errors but corrected them in their annual filings, aligning with a broader trend in GST litigation.
[1] 2022 (5) TMI 1136
[2] 2024 (3) TMI 1030