The case pertains to underreporting of input tax credit in the GST summary return form, GSTR 3B, during those three months in 2017 due to absence of the purchase-related return form during the transition period.
The operator argued that in the absence of the statutory forms GSTR 2 and 3, the summary return form was introduced. It does not allow validation before uploading. In the absence of such validation, chances of incorrect details being uploaded could not be eliminated.
The HC said, “Indisputably, if the statutorily prescribed returns, GSTR-2 and GSTR-3 had been operationalised by the Centre, the petitioner would have known the correct input tax credit amount available to it in the relevant period, and could have discharged its liability through the tax credit.”
It said that as a consequence, the deficiency in reporting the eligible input tax credit in the months of July-September has resulted in excess payment of cash by the petitioner.
Harpreet Singh, partner, KPMG, said: “Any new law, would have its own set of open issues... Not having an ability to rectify the same is a bit harsh.”