The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.20864 of 2025 Gautam Pattnaik …. Petitioner Mr.Anup Narayan Mohanty, Advocate -versus- Principal Commissioner of CT & GST, Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr.Sunil Mishra, Standing Counsel, CT & GST (State) CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. 02. 1. Challenge is laid to order of rejection dated 17th May, 2025
Decision
ORDER 08.09.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, CT and GST Circle, Cuttack-I under Section 161 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act/the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Collectively, “GST Act”) in connection with order dated 18th October, 2024 passed under Section 73 pertaining to tax periods from April 2021 to March, 2022, in the instant writ petition. 2. On the allegation of discrepancy between figures disclosed in GSTR-2 and GSTR-3B, an order dated 18th October, 2024 under Section 73 has come to be passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Page 1 of 6 State Tax, CT and GST Circle, Cuttack-I in pursuance of show cause notice dated 9th December, 2024. 2.1. Incorrect figures fed to the self-assessment returns caused wrongful availment of input tax credit and, on account of such human error in uploading data, demand to the tune of Rs.3,27,65,030/- was raised. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Anup Narayan Mohanty, learned Advocate for the petitioner that due to circumstances that prevented the petitioner from appearing before the assessing authority, a huge demand has been raised by the virtue of aforesaid order. Against such order the appeal preferred before the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Territorial Range, Cuttack-I, Cuttack was rejected by order dated 29th March, 2025 in terms of Section 107 (4) of the GST Act due to delay in preferring such appeal. It is submitted that the approach of the assessing authority was erroneous inasmuch as there was wrong reflection of figures while feeding into the system; as a consequence of which erroneous return was filed. Such a fact, it is submitted that, could come to the fore after being aware of the order dated 18th October, 2024. Therefore, in order to ventilate the grievance and to rectify the human error in feeding the figures into the system, the petitioner invoked the provisions of Section 161 of the GST Act. However, the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax on perceiving that the said application was beyond three months, rejected the same on the ground of limitation. 3.1. Mr. Anup Narayan Mohanty, learned Advocate has further submitted that there was error in placing a dot (.) to indicate figures of paisa. To demonstrate he has taken to paragraph-3 of the petition filed under Section 161 of the GST Act as furnished to the proper officer vide Annexure-7, which is reproduced as under : Page 2 of 6 “That, as per the intimation provided by the proper officer, the TP has claimed ITC of Rs.1,07,91,648/- each under CGST and SGST Act in GSTR 3-B, whereas per GSTR-2B the ITC was available for Rs.36,845.57/- each under CGST and SGST Act. It is pertinent to mention here that in absence of the TP, one of his new staff has filed the return for the month of November 2021 where a clerical mistake was made in claiming the ITC in GSTR-3B. While filing the return, the new staff has omitted the point mark in between unfortunately mentioned rupees Rs.1,07,91,648/- instead of Rs.1,07,916.48/- both under CGST and SGST. When, the mistake came to the knowledge of the TP, he immediately reversed the excess amount of ITC claims (i.e., Rs.1,07,91,648 – Rs.1,07,916.48 = Rs.1,06,83,731.52) both under CGST and SGST. The wrong ITC was reversed in GSTR-3B for the month of January 2022-2023.” He submitted that this mercy petition is filed to afford one paisa and and 3.2. chance to explain before the Proper Officer for correction of error in feeding the figures in the system. 5. This Court vide order dated 8th August, 2025 taking note of the averments of the petitioner in the writ petition, passed the following order: “4. The petitioner has asserted the following fact at paragraph-6 of the writ petition, which reads as under:- 4 of FORM GSTR-3B “6. That it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner while filing its online periodical return in GSTR-3B for the month of November-2021, has inadvertently put the Input Tax Credit (ITC) in column as Rs.1,07,91,648.00/- each under CGST and SGST head instead of actual ITC of Rs.1,07,916.48 under each head thereby there was an excess ITC Claim of Rs.1,06,83,732/- under each head totaling to Rs.2,13,67,464/-. The said claim was made inadvertently due to non-putting of single dot mark between Rupees and Paisa in the appropriate column of the return. The said mistake was neither deliberate nor intentional Page 3 of 6 xxx and the same being made due to clerical error arising from accidental slip or omission.” xxx xxx 8. This Court having diligently considered the rival submission, on perusal of record and averments contained in paragraph-6 of the writ petition as extracted hereinabove is of the considered view that there is prima facie genuineness in the claim of the petitioner. Under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case as is seen that the petitioner has stated to have filled up “Rs.1,07,91,648.00” instead of “Rs.1,07,916.48”. As it seems the entire demand has been raised on excess input tax credit claimed on the differential amount. 9. This Court is satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to one opportunity to correct such mistake under the peculiar circumstances as contended. Therefore, this Court while keeping this writ petition pending, in order to discern the veracity of claim of the petitioner on concession of learned counsel for both the sides, directs as follows:- I. The petitioner shall appear before the authority concerned on or before 18th August, 2025 along with books of accounts, tax invoices, copies of returns in order to show that there was accidental slip or omission/commission. II. On such appearance, the authority concerned shall verify the figures disclosed as uploaded by the supplier and match the figures with that of tax invoice(s) and entries in the books of account of the petitioner vis-à-vis returns. III. The authority concerned shall furnish a report to the Court by next date. In the event, the authority requires more time beyond 18th August, 2025, he may specify a date of appearance and intimate to the petitioner. IV. The entire process should be completed on or before 6th September, 2025. Needless to observe that the petitioner shall cooperate with the Page 4 of 6 authority concerned and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournments.” 6. In order to comply the said order, upon verification of necessary documents/evidence, a report has been submitted by the Assistant Commissioner of State CT and GST Circle, Cuttack-I Circle, Cuttack through learned Standing Counsel. 7. It is transpired from such report that the contention as raised by the petitioner is genuine. To elaborate, it is pertinent to place hereunder the relevant portion of such report: Summary for ITC available and availed for Oct-21 and Nov-21 S l . N o . 1 2 Perio d Oct-21 Nov- 21 Total 8. Invoi ce Value as per purch ase Regis ter/In voice s 100042 3.1 519920 .02 152034 3.12 Taxab le Value 859780 .37 444928 .56 130480 8.93 ITC available in Purchase Register ITC availed in GSTR3B fIgures in Rupees I G S T 0 0 0 CGST SGST 71070. 91 36845. 57 107916 .48 71070. 91 36845. 57 107916 .48 I G S T 0 0 0 CGST SGST 0 0 107916 48 107916 48 107916 48 107916 48 In view of the aforesaid, since this Court finds that due to error in feeding and uploading, the figures “Rs.1,07,916.48” has been disclosed as “Rs.1,07,91,648.00.”. Such error needs to be corrected. Hence, the petitioner is liable to be granted an opportunity by the authority concerned for carrying out necessary correction and give consequential effect thereto. It is perceived that human errors and mistakes are normal and such errors of clerical/arithmetical nature are liable to be allowed for correction. In view of aforesaid conceded position in the foregoing paragraph, and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court, exercising extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction sets aside order dated 17th May, 2025 Page 5 of 6 rejecting the application for rectification under Section 161 of the GST Act. 8.1. The matter is now remitted to the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, CT and GST Circle, Cuttack-I, Central Circle, Cuttack who shall, in consideration of the petition for rectification of mistake found justified for correction by the authority vide report dated 26th August, 2025, allow the petitioner to rectify the mistake crept in the return and the authority shall modify the order under Section 73 of the GST Act accordingly. The authority concerned shall complete the exercise within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge Bichi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BICHITRANANDA SAHOO Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 12-Sep-2025 16:54:19 Page 6 of 6