Can GST Act Timelines Be Relaxed For Bonafide Errors? Supreme Court Appoints Amicus Curiae, Issues Notice To CBIC
The Supreme Court recently issued notice to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) over the recurrent issue of not allowing rectification of bonafide errors made after the lapse of prescribed deadlines under the CGST Act. The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan was hearing a challenge by the Union against the decision of the Bombay High...
The Supreme Court recently issued notice to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) over the recurrent issue of not allowing rectification of bonafide errors made after the lapse of prescribed deadlines under the CGST Act.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan was hearing a challenge by the Union against the decision of the Bombay High Court which allowed the rectification of bonafide errors by the assessee in GSTR-1 Form despite missing the deadline under S. 39(9) of the CGST Act 2017. Here the assessee wanted to rectify the returns filed for Financial Year 2017-2018 in Form GSTR-1. The application to rectify was rejected on the ground that the time to rectify had ended.
Notably, S. 39(9) states the rectification of such omission or incorrect particulars have to be made on or before 30th day of November, following the end of the financial year to which such details pertained.
The Court refusing to entertain the petition, referred to its recent order where it underscored the need for the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) to fix realistic timelines for correcting bonafide errors by the assesses in forms when filing GST returns.
The Court noted that the recurrent stand taken by the CBIC is the fixed time period under S. 39(9) of the Act. Considering the same, it issued notice to the CBIC on this aspect. The relevant part of the order reads :
"It appears that on account of mistakes or errors getting noticed on the input tax credit, and the input tax credit being subsequently denied to the purchaser, the Revenue has been taking the stand that rectification is not possible after expiry of the period prescribed under Sections 37(3) and 39(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. In order to resolve the issue, we deem it appropriate to issue notice to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs."
"It may be noticed that, in all these cases, it is accepted by the Revenue that there is a clerical/arithmetical mistake which is not being permitted to be corrected. Invariably, such mistakes come to the notice of the seller, who has to fill up the online form(s), etc., after the input tax credit is denied to the purchaser(s)."
The Court appointed Senior Advocate Arvind Datar as an Amicus Curiae to assist in the present case.
The matter will now be heard in April.
Additional Solicitor General Raghavendra P Shankar appeared for the Union. Advocate Ayush Agarwala appeared for the Respondents.
Case Details: THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. BRIJ SYSTEMS LTD & ORS.| SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 6334/2025
