The Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) , West Bengal in the case of M/S. CABCON INDIA LIMITED vide Order No. WBAAR 22 of 2023 and Order No. 23/WBAAR/2023-24 dated 29.11.2023, has held that Advance Ruling cannot be made in relation to Rectification of Mistake in GSTR-1.

In this case, the applicant has made some mistakes while filing FORM GSTR-1 on the common portal for the financial year 2017-18. For example, due to wrong selection of State Code from the drop-down list, the portal has identified an intra-state supply to be an inter-state supply and vice versa. This has resulted in incorrect discharge of output tax liability. 

The Applicant submitted that  they have accounted actual GST liability in their books of accounts and discharged GST liability correctly through GSTR-3B. Further, errors have been detected in February 2023 while going through the process of checking of mismatch between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B, as information received from GST portal. The applicant expresses its inability to amend those above mentioned mistakes occurred in 2017-2018.

The Applicant sought Advance Ruling on how  to rectify the mistake which are showing in GSTR -1 (IGST short GST liability and CGST & SGST excess liability) of that month in 2017-2018 but tax during the month has been properly discharged by your assesse in correct head i.e. in IGST, CGST and SGST.

The AAR held that the question on which advance ruling is sought by the applicant is found not to be covered under the provisions of Section 97(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. 

Further, as per sub-section (2) of section 97 of the GST Act, the question on which the advance ruling is sought under this Act, shall be in respect of, —

(a) classification of any goods or services or both;

(b) applicability of a notification issued under the provisions of this Act;

(c) determination of time and value of supply of goods or services or both;

(d) admissibility of input tax credit of tax paid or deemed to have been paid;

(e) determination of the liability to pay tax on any goods or services or both;

(f) whether applicant is required to be registered;

(g) whether any particular thing done by the applicant with respect to any goods or services or both amounts to or results in a supply of goods or services or both, within the meaning of that term.

The AAR viewed that there may not be any reason to accept the application made by the applicant for pronouncement of ruling. The application, therefore, is rejected.