Facts of the Case:

In this case, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking a direction to the GST authorities to permit manual filing of GSTR-3B for the quarter ending March 2021 with an additional claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to ₹10,54,098/-.

The petitioner contended that due to an inadvertent error during FY 2020–21, ITC for January and February 2021 was not claimed in the original GSTR-3B. This omission was noticed by the petitioner’s accountant in 2022, at the time of filing the annual return in GSTR-9, which was duly filed with corrected figures. The petitioner was under the bona fide belief that filing the annual return would rectify the discrepancy across departmental records.

However, the error continued in the GST system, which came to light only upon receipt of a Summary Show Cause Notice dated 23.11.2024 in Form GST DRC-01. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a reply on 07.01.2025. As there exists no statutory mechanism under Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017 to revise or manually file GSTR-3B after the prescribed time limit, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking equitable relief. During pendency of the writ petition, the adjudicating authority passed an order dated 19.02.2025, confirming a demand of ₹11,21,351/- on account of mismatch between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B.

Issue:

Whether the High Court can direct the GST authorities to permit manual filing of GSTR-3B for a past tax period to enable claim of omitted ITC, despite the absence of an enabling provision under the CGST Act, 2017, and after issuance of a show cause notice and adjudication order.

Held that:

The High Court held that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner’s request to file manual GSTR-3B deserved to be acceded to in order to correct a bona fide procedural lapse.

The Court accepted the petitioner’s submission that permitting manual filing would not automatically absolve the petitioner of the tax demand confirmed under the adjudication order dated 19.02.2025. The adjudication order would remain intact and enforceable, subject to modification or setting aside by the competent authority in appropriate appellate or other proceedings, if initiated.

Accordingly, the respondents were directed to permit manual filing of GSTR-3B for the quarter ending March 2021, strictly as a procedural correction and without any automatic impact on the confirmed demand.

This decision reinforces the principle that procedural limitations under GST law should not defeat substantive rights, particularly where the omission is bona fide, no revenue loss is demonstrated, and the taxpayer does not seek automatic annulment of adjudicated liabilities.

Case Name: Shivam Electric Corporation Versus Union of India & Ors. dated 01.01.2026.

To read the complete judgement 2026 Taxo.online 1