The Madras High Court in the case of A. Ansari Abu Agencies vide Order No. W.P. NO. 8264 OF 2024 W.M.P. NOS. 9217 & 9218 OF 2024 dated 27.03.2024, has set aside the order imposing tax liability imposed on the petitioner  for an inadvertent error although no revenue loss was suffered on such account, stating that it is an inadvertent error committed while filing GSTR-1 when the same was corrected in GSTR-3B. 

In this case, the petitioner filed a return in GSTR 1 in relation to outward supplies in the assessment period 2017-18. The Petitioner while filing the return has accepted that an error was committed by providing details pertaining to the same invoice more than once. Upon receipt of an intimation regarding such discrepancies, the petitioner replied thereto by stating that it was an inadvertent error and that the correct details are contained in the petitioner's GSTR 3B return. 

The Petitioner has also obtained certificates from each of the relevant purchasers of goods, the purchasers stated that they had availed of input tax credit (ITC) by excluding the duplicate invoices and that this is reflected in their GSTR 2A returns. 

However,  the tax liability was imposed on the petitioner for an inadvertent error although no revenue loss was suffered on such account. The Department contended that he petitioner failed to rectify the GSTR 1 statement within the prescribed time limit, including the extended time in such regard. Therefore, he contends that the impugned order contains no infirmity.

The Court noted that  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. 

The Court held that 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. 

To read the complete judgment 2024 Taxo.online 651