Order date – 18 October 2022

 Facts –

• The Petitioner, M/s Mahalaxmi Infra Contract Ltd. engaged in business of mining. It also undertakes transportation of goods for central government undertakings, including Eastern Coalfields Limited, Central Coal Fields Limited etc. within the State of Jharkhand. 
• In the year 2018 petitioner’s company was engaged by Eastern Coalfields Limited, for providing services in relation to removal and re-handling of overburden from Dahernangi OC patch of Rajmahal Area. While filing its return in Form GSTR 1 for January 2019 in March 2019, within the time prescribed, according to the petitioner an inadvertent error was committed in the GSTIN of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. as it was quoted the GSTIN of one MIPL-NKAS (JV). 
• The error apparently came to the notice of the petitioner only during finalization of the accounts in June 2021 with Eastern Coalfields Ltd. who had also by that time detected availment of ITC in lieu of the Tax Invoice No. 1/2018-19 dated 17th January 2019, though not reflected in its GSTR-2. 

Issue –

• Whether the petitioner can rectify wrongly uploaded GSTR?

Order –

• The Hon’ble High Court observed that on account of an inadvertent error, the entry relating to Tax Invoice No. 01/2018- 19 dated 17th January 2019 could not be reflected in the GSTR-1 filed by the petitioner against the GSTIN of Eastern Coalfields Limited. Instead it was quoted in the GSTIN of MIPL-NKAS (JV) which was not the recipient of such supplies. 
• It further appears that in the absence of notification of such forms GSTR-2 and GSTR-1A the MIPL-NKAS (JV) could also not submit the relevant form GSTR-2 indicating such incorrect entries in its GSTR-2A due to incorrect entries in GSTR-1 by the petitioner.
• The relevant form GST-MIS 1 and GST-MIS 2 as conceived under section 70 and 71 read with section 42 (prior to its omission under notification no.19/2022 and 18/2022 vide notification dated 28.09.2022 of CBIC) also having not been prescribed, the online mechanisms for discovery and correction of such mistake either by the supplier or by the recipient or both, could not take place.
• The detailed structured mechanism conceived under the JGST Act and the rules framed thereunder having not been put into place, the online portal did not permit such correction by any aggrieved registered person on its own. Therefore, the necessity for such an aggrieved registered person to approach this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is not in dispute that such that such incorrect entries in GSTR-1 by Petitioner for the period January 2019 filed in March 2019 were not going to entail any additional tax impact. 
• Hence, the petitioner is allowed to make the necessary correction in GSTR-1 form for January 2019. Such correction, if does not entail technical difficulties by the GSTN, may be allowed to be made online by GSTN by opening the portal for a limited period. If such a course is not possible to be done online for technical reasons, the GSTN could allow the petitioner to make such corrections through manual mode.