In a recent development, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court, in the matter of M/s. Chukkath Krishnan Praveen v. State of Kerala, delivered a significant judgment allowing rectification in Goods and Services Tax Returns (GSTR-3B). The court's decision addresses the issue of erroneously accounting for ITC as IGST credit instead of CGST and SGST credits.
Facts of the Case:
M/s. Chukkath Krishnan Praveen, the petitioner, had inadvertently made an error in filing GSTR-3B returns, leading to the issuance of an Assessment Order on August 21, 2023. The petitioner promptly submitted a representation to the Respondent Authorities on October 21, 2023, seeking rectification for the mistake in the returns.
Subsequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition, urging the Revenue Department to allow rectification in Form GSTR-3B by accounting for ITC as IGST instead of CGST and SGST ITC. Additionally, the petitioner sought a refund of IGST ITC and proposed adjusting the IGST credit towards SGST and CGST liabilities. The Representation was also requested to be treated as a Rectification Application.
The primary question before the court was whether rectification in the return could be permitted when ITC in GSTR-3B is erroneously accounted for as IGST credit instead of CGST and SGST credit.
In its ruling, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court disposed of the writ petition
and directed that the Representation filed by the petitioner should be treated as a Rectification Application. The court instructed the Revenue Department to pass the necessary order in accordance with the law after providing a proper hearing to the petitioner. The court set a timeline of two months for the completion of this process.
The judgment of the Kerala High Court offers relief to the petitioner by allowing rectification in GSTR-3B for the inadvertent accounting of ITC as IGST credit instead of CGST and SGST credits. The court's directive emphasizes the significance of rectifying genuine errors in tax returns and aligns with the principles of natural justice by granting the petitioner a fair hearing in the rectification process. This decision sets a precedent for similar cases, underlining the importance of addressing errors in a timely and just manner within the framework of tax regulations.