HC Directs GST Authorities to Permit Rectification of Clerical Error in Return.

JUDGMENT

Murahari Sri Raman, J. – To err is human; to forgive, divine— Alexander Pope, An Essay On Criticism. Nevertheless, to persist in mistake is ugly. So, mistake is a lesson: not a loss; it is a temporary, necessary detour, but not a dead end.

Yet, non-consideration of prayer for rectification of inadvertent error crept in while filling up figures of registration number of the Rail Vikas Nigam Limited (RVNL)-opposite party No.2 in the return relating to the first quarter of Financial Year 2023-24 (April-June, 2023) showing deposit of Goods and Services Tax in the Tax Deduction at Source Account bearing No.21AACCR5652AlD8 of RVNL-opposite party No.2 in place of the Regular GST Registration No.21AACCR5652AlZZ of the opposite party No.2, before the authorities concerned, landed the taxpayer before this Court by way of filing the instant writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, beseeching following relief(s):

“In the circumstances stated above, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this Writ Application, issue notices to the opposite parties to show cause as to why the grievance of the petitioner vide annexure -4 will not be consider and the opposite party No. 1 may kindly be directed to take appropriate step to rectify the mistake of the petitioner and take an appropriate step to rectify/transfer the TDS GST number of the opposite party No.2 account to Regular GST number account of opposite party No.2;

And, pass such other Order/Orders, Writ/writs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case to meet the ends of justice;

And, for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

2. The details of narration as adumbrated by the writ petitioner reveals the following pertinent facts.

2.1. The petitioner, proprietor of M/s. Baba Enterprisers assigned with GST No.21APGPP7644L1ZK supplied goods and services by way of execution of earthwork for strengthening of embankment, toe protection works, supply of earth moving machine, mechanical equipments, manpower and construction materials to the various persons-recipients including the opposite party No.2 as per their requirements in connection with HDS-Pradeep New BG Rail Link Project of East Coast Railways.

2.2. While disclosing the transactions along with tax components involved therein in the return pertaining to Financial Year 2023-24 (April-June, 2023) inadvertently furnished return showing deposit of tax in the GSTIN bearing No.21AACCR5652AlD8 of RVNL-the opposite party No.2 relating to TDS instead of showing deposit of amount in Regular GSTIN:21AACCR5652AlZZ.

2.3. The petitioner has been supplying raw materials and machinery items and manpower to the opposite party No.2 in usual course of its business transactions, but the above mistake could come to fore when payment due is held up which caused filing of representations dated 07.06.2025 and 19.06.2025 before the opposite party No.2 for release of the payment of Rs.57,12,651/-.

2.4. The petitioner made an attempt before the opposite parties-GST authorities to allow it to rectify the mistake crept in the return and accordingly prayer is made by way of Letter dated 23.06.2025 indicating that

“The mismatch has been reported in invoice No. BERVNL/23-24/43, date: 26.05.2023 of invoice amount Rs.16278991/- GST return period of May-23 & in invoice No. BERVNL/23-24/46, date: 21.06.2023 of invoice amount Rs. 10600297/- GST return period of Jun-23. The mismatch is of TDS GST No.21AACCR5652A1D8 (Rail Vikash Nigam Limited.) to Regular GST No.21AACCR5652A1ZZ (Rail Vikash Nigam Limited.) and as per our understanding, this mismatch is due to the swapping of last two digits.”

2.5. The amount of GST has already been deposited by the petitioner in the account of the opposite party No.2-RVNL against invoice No.BERVNL/23-24/46, dated 21.06.2023 comprising OGST of Rs.8,08,497/- and CGST of Rs.8,08,497/- (in toto Rs. 16,16,994/-) and invoice No.BERVNL/23-24/43, dated 26.05.2023 with respect to OGST Rs. 12,41,618/- and CGST Rs.12,41,618/- (Total Rs.24,83,236/-) in the Financial Year 2023-24 (May, 2023 and June, 2023).

2.6. Though appropriate taxes have been deposited with the opposite party No.2, none of the opposite parties, being approached by way of representations, has paid any heed to the grievance of the petitioner, which led to knocking of doors of this Court craving to issue writ of mandamus.

3. The matter in writ petition came up for hearing on 29.07.2025 under the heading “Fresh Admission” and the Standing Counsel appearing for the CGST Organisation sought accommodation to receive instructions. After couple of adjournments, Junior Standing Counsel furnished copy of instruction as received from the CGST authorities showing helplessness in mitigating the grievance of the petitioner by considering the representation to rectify the defect in the return on the ground that time specified for this purpose has already been elapsed.

3.1. Heard Sri Deepak Kumar Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri Deepak Gochhayat, learned Central Government Counsel; Sri Sunil Mishra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the CT & GST Organisation and Sri Avinash Kedia, learned Junior Standing Counsel representing CGST Organisation.

4. Sri Deepak Kumar Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though due taxes have been credited to the exchequer, the manual error while filling up figures in the return could have been allowed to be rectified by the authorities concerned.

4.1. Non-consideration of such a plight of the petitioner would lead to double taxation inasmuch as the opposite party No.2 having withheld payment on account of supplies made would deduct like amount of tax by appropriating the same in its regular GST account notwithstanding the fact that the amount of tax has already been deposited in its other account, i.e., TDS registration number. Such double taxation would hit inhibition under Article 265 of the Constitution of India

5. Replicating the instructions as received from the CGST authorities, Sri Avinash Kedia, learned Junior Standing Counsel, would submit that the plea of the petitioner being time-barred, issue of writ of mandamus is uncalled for.

5.1. Sri Deepak Gochhayat, learned Central Government Counsel failed to place on record any instructions though the same is stated to have been sought for from proper quarters.

5.2. Sri Sunil Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the CT & GST Organisation submitted that it is for the GST Network which is required to take a call and he does not have any further instruction in this respect.

6. What is emanated from the documents upon scrutiny is that invoices were generated depicting registration number GSTIN: 21AACCR5652A1ZZ in connection with the supplies made to the opposite party No.2-RVNL by the petitioner. However, while filling up said figures of registration number, as averred by the petitioner and not disputed by the counsel representing the opposite parties, mistake crept in and in place of Regular GST Registration No.21AACCR5652AlZZ, GSTIN No.21AACCR5652AlD8 of RVNL-opposite party No.2 relating to Tax Deduction at Source has been mentioned.

6.1. In order to conceive the grievance of the petitioner and find resolution of trivial human error, this Court may emphasise that the authorities concerned ought to have taken recourse to provisions of Section 161 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act”, for short).

6.2. Provisions of Section 161 of the CGST Act stand as follows:

“Rectification of errors apparent on the face of record.—

Without prejudice to the provisions of Section 160, and notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, any authority, who has passed or issued any decision or order or notice or certificate or any other document, may rectify any error which is apparent on the face of record in such decision or order or notice or certificate or any other document, either on its own motion or where such error is brought to its notice by any officer appointed under this Act or an officer appointed under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or an officer appointed under the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act or by the affected person within a period of three months from the date of issue of such decision or order or notice or certificate or any other document, as the case may be:

Provided that no such rectification shall be done after a period of six months from the date of issue of such decision or order or notice or certificate or any other document:

Provided further that the said period of six months shall not apply in such cases where the rectification is purely in the nature of correction of a clerical or arithmetical error, arising from any accidental slip or omission:

Provided also that where such rectification adversely affects any person, the principles of natural justice shall be followed by the authority carrying out such rectification.”

6.3. The corresponding pari materia provision in Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“OGST Act”, for brevity) is also found.

6.4. Though the provision refers to error in decision or order, taking cue from expression “error which is apparent on the face of record” analogy could be drawn, as “return” filed on the basis of “self-assessment” is comprehended within the meaning of “assessment” as defined under Section 2(11) of the GST Act.

6.5. On a bare reading of Letter bearing Ref. No.BE/0039/ 2025, dated 25.06.2025 (Annexure-4) addressed to the opposite party-statutory authority, manifests that it is only last two letters have been swapped which led to showing deposit of amount of tax under a wrong account. Since it seems to be clerical or arithmetical error, arising from accidental slip or omission, the opposite parties-Revenue, instead of showing indifference on technical niceties, should have approached pragmatically. Such an action could have saved much valuable time and energy not only of the petitioner and other opposite parties, but also this Court.

6.6. As is apparent that due to error in typing the figures/ alphabets of registration number, the petitioner should not have been shown the exit doors by the authorities concerned and such refusal to rectify clerical or arithmetical error, arising from any accidental slip or omission, would tantamount to “double jeopardy”. At this juncture the perception as to accidental slip or omission as discussed in the context of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in Niyamat Ali Molla v. Sonargon Housing Cooperative Society Ltd. (2007) 11 SCR 346 may be relevant. The observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said reported case runs as follows:

“18. Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the court to correct its own error in a judgment, decree or order from any accidental slip or omission. The principle behind the said provision is actus curiae neminem gravabit i.e. nobody shall be prejudiced by an act of court.

19. The Code of Civil Procedure recognises the inherent power of the court. It is not only confined to the amendment of the judgment or decree as envisaged under Section 152 of the Code but also inherent power in general. The courts also have duty to see that the records are true and present the correct state of affair. There cannot, however, be any doubt whatsoever that the court cannot exercise the said jurisdiction so as to review its judgment. It cannot also exercise its jurisdiction when no mistake or slip occurred in the decree or order. This provision, in our opinion, should, however, not be construed in a pedantic manner. A decree may, therefore, be corrected by the court both in exercise of its power under Section 152 as also under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such a power of the court is well recognised.

***

21. The question came up for consideration before the Calcutta High Court in Bela Debi, AIR 1952 Cal 86, wherein it was held: (AIR pp. 89-90, paras 19-20)

’19. It will thus be seen that there is a diversity of judicial opinion as to how far a court can go in rectifying its own decree. Where, of course, the amendment is in order to carry out its own meaning, there is no doubt about the power of the Court in effecting such corrections [see St. Nazaire Co. , In re, (1879) 12 Ch D 88 (CA); Preston Banking Co. Vrs. William Allsup & Sons, (1891-94) All ER Rep 688 =(1895) 1 Ch 141 (CA)]. Nor can it be disputed that it has power to rectify mistakes which are of a ministerial kind [see Mellor Vrs. Swire, (1885) 30 Ch D 239 (CA)]. But the difficulty arises when it is found that the mistake is not one of the Court but is a mistake of the parties themselves. Mistakes in the description of properties in deeds, is illustrative of this kind of mistake. It is the parties who have made the mistake, and the mistake is continued in the pleadings and the decree. According to one view, Section 152 is confined to acts of the Court and, therefore, mistakes of parties made in the pleadings or deeds and documents evidencing the transaction cannot be corrected [L. Ram Chander Sarup Vrs. Mazhar Hussain, AIR 1919 All 264]. The second view is that under this section and Section 151, plaint, judgment and decree all can be amended [see Shiam Lal Vrs. Mt. Moona Kuar, AIR 1934 Oudh 352, AIR at p. 354; Ram Chandra Sahu Vrs. Jamna Prasad, AIR 1935 Oudh 92. A third view is that it is permissible under such circumstances to amend the decree and it is unnecessary to amend the plaint [Badri Pande Vrs. Chhangur Pandey, AIR 1933 All 102; Jamini Bala Biswas Vrs. Bank of Chettinad, Ltd. , AIR 1935 Rang 522, AIR at p. 523]. Lastly, there is the view, which I have already noted, which goes to the extent of holding that the Court cannot only rectify pleadings and decrees but rectify documents evidencing the transactions themselves, upon which the suit was founded.

20. I shall now state, what in my opinion, is the true meaning of Section 152, Civil Procedure Code. I am not in favour of giving a narrow construction to Section 152. I do not agree that Section 152 must necessarily refer to an ‘accidental slip or omission’ of the Court itself, or its ministerial officers. It does not say so in the section itself, and should not be interpreted as such. Where it is the Court’s own accidental slip or omission, or that of its ministerial officers, there can be no doubt that the section applies. But it gives power to rectify any accidental slip or omission in a judgment, decree or order, and might include an accidental slip or omission traceable to the conduct of the parties themselves. But it must be an ‘accidental slip or omission’. A mistake made by the parties in a deed upon which the suit is founded, and repeated in the judgment, decree or order, may or may not be an ‘accidental slip or omission’. Where it is clear, that such is the case, then I do not see why the Court cannot set it right. In doing so, what is going to be rectified is, the judgment decree or order, and it is not at all necessary to rectify either the pleadings or the deed. In making such corrections, however, the Court can only proceed on the footing that there could be no reasonable doubt as to what it really intended to say in its judgment, decree or order. It cannot go into any disputed questions. If there is a particular description of a property in a deed, and a suit has been instituted on the strength of that description, and a decree passed, it is not permissible in proceedings under Section 152 to go into disputed questions as to what property was intended to be dealt with, by the parties in the deed. I agree with Gentle, C.J. that such a question can only be dealt with, in appropriate proceedings under the Specific Relief Act [see T.M. Ramakrishnan Chettiar Vrs. G. Radhakrishnan Chettiar, AIR 1948 Mad 13. But it may so happen that the mistake is so palpable that nobody can possibly have any doubt as to what the parties meant or what the Court meant when it passed its judgment, decree or order. For example, suppose in a conveyance a property is described as ’24 Chowringhee Road, Bhawanipur’. It would be clear to everybody what property was meant, and it cannot be seriously doubted that in stating that the property was in ‘Bhawanipur’, the parties had committed an ‘accidental slip or omission’. In such a case, I would not go to the extent of holding that the Court has no power to correct the judgment, decree or order which has repeated the mistake. In doing so, the Court need not correct the pleadings or the document but its own decision. In my opinion, it is not necessary in such a case to amend the pleadings or to rectify the deed, therefore, no question arises as to whether the Court has power to do so. It is, however, quite clear that such cases must be of rare occurrence, and the scope thereof is severely limited. The power cannot be extended to the resolving of controversial points, and a decision as to what the parties intended or did not intent to do. Apart from this exceptional case, I hold that the Court cannot correct errors anterior to the proceedings before it. For such a purpose, the proper proceeding is by way of a suit under Section 31, Specific Relief Act. To this extent, I agree respectfully with the view enunciated by Gentle, C.J. in T.M. Ramakrishnan Chettiar Vrs. G. Radhakrishnan Chettiar, AIR 1948 Mad 13 and the view expressed by Young, J. in Shujaatmand Khan Vrs. Govind Behari, AIR 1934 All 100 (2). Applying these principles to the facts of this case, I think that the rectification asked for is impossible. If there has been a mistake in the original agreement it is a mistake which is fundamental, and it is impossible without going into evidence, to decide as to what the parties meant. There are facts in favour of the contention put forward by either party and I cannot describe it as an error (if there is at all any error) as can be called ‘an accidental slip or omission’ as contemplated in Section 152. In any event, such slips or omissions cannot be rectified in proceedings under Section 152 or even under Section 151 of the Code.’

We, with respect, agree with the aforenoticed view.

22. In Lakshmi Ram Bhuyan Vrs. Hari Prasad Bhuyan, (2003) 1 SCC 197 =”AIR” 2003 SC 351 this Court opined that when a decree had been drawn up by the High Court, the Court can take recourse to Section 152 of the Code stating : (SCC p. 203, para 14)

’14…. In our opinion, the successful party has no other option but to have recourse to Section 152CPC which provides for clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission being corrected at any time by the court either on its own motion or on the application of any of the parties. A reading of the judgment of the High Court shows that in its opinion the plaintiffs were found entitled to succeed in the suit. There is an accidental slip or omission in manifesting the intention of the court by couching the reliefs to which the plaintiffs were entitled in the event of their succeeding in the suit. Section 152 enables the court to vary its judgment so as to give effect to its meaning and intention. Power of the court to amend its orders so as to carry out the intention and express the meaning of the court at the time when the order was made was upheld by Bowen, L.J. in Swire, Re, Mellor Vrs. Swire, (1885) 30 Ch D 239 (CA) subject to the only limitation that the amendment can be made without injustice or on terms which preclude injustice. Lindley, L.J. observed that if the order of the court, though drawn up, did not express the order as intended to be made then ‘there is no such magic in passing and entering an order as to deprive the court of jurisdiction to make its own records true, and if an order as passed and entered does not express the real order of the court, it would, as it appears to me, be shocking to say that the party aggrieved cannot come here to have the record set right, but must go to the House of Lords by way of appeal.’

***

24. In State of Punjab Vrs. Darshan Singh, (2004) 1 SCC 328 =”AIR” 2003 SC 4179, however, it was held: (SCC pp. 332-33, para 12)

’12. Section 152 provides for correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. The exercise of this power contemplates the correction of mistakes by the court of its ministerial actions and does not contemplate passing of effective judicial orders after the judgment, decree or order. The settled position of law is that after the passing of the judgment, decree or order, the same becomes final subject to any further avenues of remedies provided in respect of the same and the very court or the tribunal cannot, on mere change of view, is not entitled to vary the terms of the judgments, decrees and orders earlier passed except by means of review, if statutorily provided specifically therefor and subject to the conditions or limitations provided therein. The powers under Section 152 of the Code are neither to be equated with the power of review nor can be said to be akin to review or even said to clothe the court concerned under the guise of invoking after the result of the judgment earlier rendered, in its entirety or any portion or part of it. The corrections contemplated are of correcting only accidental omissions or mistakes and not all omissions and mistakes which might have been committed by the court while passing the judgment, decree or order. The omission sought to be corrected which goes to the merits of the case is beyond the scope of Section 152 as if it is looking into it for the first time, for which the proper remedy for the aggrieved party, if at all, is to file an appeal or revision before the higher forum or review application before the very forum, subject to the limitations in respect of such review. It implies that the section cannot be pressed into service to correct an omission which is intentional, however erroneous that may be. It has been noticed that the courts below have been liberally construing and applying the provisions of Sections 151 and 152 of the Code even after passing of effective orders in the lis pending before them. No court can, under the cover of the aforesaid sections, modify, alter or add to the terms of its original judgment, decree or order. Similar view was expressed by this Court in Dwaraka Das Vrs. State of M.P. , (1999) 3 SCC 500 and Jayalakshmi Coelho Vrs. Oswald Joseph Coelho, (2001) 4 SCC 181.’

***”

6.7. Broadly what constitutes “record” can be couched from the following decisions:

The expression ‘record’ would include not merely the assessment order but the entire assessment file and in the intermediate cases also if from a perusal of the record or the assessment files the revising authority can find that the turnover was before the assessing officer it is competent for it to pronounce upon the legality or propriety of the assessment order.

The word ‘record’ cannot be construed as meaning not only the assessment record but also the books of accounts, various registers maintained and the sale invoices which the assessee might have brought to the sales tax office at the time of assessment.

Power of rectification is to be exercised with reference to the records of the assessee available with the Assessing Officer, and not with particular reference to the assessment alone. ‘Record’ cannot be said to be the record of one particular assessment, but the entire record of the assessee relating to all the assessment years.

6.8. Bearing in mind such perception of the term “record”, examining the definition of the word “assessment” contained in Section 2(11) juxtaposed with provisions of different sections in Chapter-IX dealing with “Returns” of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, it can be, without any ambiguity, comprehended that “self assessment” by way of furnishing “returns” and disclosure of facts and figures therein form part of connotation of “record”.

6.9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Maharana Mills (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1959] 36 ITR 350 (SC) =”1959″ SCC OnLine SC 90 explained in the following manner what is meant by expression “mistake apparent on the face of the record”:

“14. Counsel for the appellant contended that the provision under which the Income Tax Officer acted i.e. Section 35 was not meant for the purpose of making corrections in written down values; and that for the purpose the appropriate and correct provision was Section 34 which specifically refers to excessive depreciation. There are two sections under which an Income Tax Officer can act i.e. Sections 34 and 35 and the question for decision that arises is whether Section 35 was open to him. Section 35 provides:

‘The Commissioner or Appellate Assistant Commissioner may, at any time within four years from the date of any order passed by him in appeal or, in the case of the Commissioner, in revision under Section 33-A and the Income Tax Officer may, at any time within four years from the date of any assessment order or refund order passed by him on his own motion rectify any mistake apparent from the record of the appeal, revision, assessment or refund as the case may be, and shall within the like period rectify any such mistake which has been brought to his notice by an assessee.’

The question therefore is, was it a mistake apparent from the record which the Income Tax Officer has rectified. It was submitted that recalculation is not rectifying a mistake which is apparent from the record. The words used in the section are “apparent from the record” and the record does not mean only the order of assessment but it comprises all proceedings on which the assessment order is based and the Income Tax Officer is entitled for the purpose of exercising his jurisdiction under Section 35 to look into the whole evidence and the law applicable to ascertain whether there was an error. If he doubts the written down value of the previous year it is open to him to check up the previous calculations and if he finds any mistake it is open to him to make fresh calculations in accordance with the law applicable including the rules made thereunder.

***

18. The scope and effect of the expression “mistake apparent from the record” and the extent of the powers of the Income Tax Officer under Section 35 of the Act were discussed by this Court in M.K. Venkatachalam Vrs. Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. , (1958) 34 ITR 143, 149 where the facts were these : A sum of Rs 50,063 being interest on tax paid in advance was given credit for under Section 18-A(5) of the Act. Subsequently there was an amendment of the Act by which the interest became allowable only on the difference between the amount of tax paid and what was actually determined. As a consequence of this the Income Tax Officer purporting to act under Section 35 of the Act rectified the mistake and reduced the amount of interest credited to Rs 21,157 and issued a demand for the difference. The assessee obtained a writ of prohibition against the Income Tax Officer on the ground that the mistake contemplated under that provision had to be apparent on the face of the Order and it was not contemplated to cover a mistake resulting from an amendment of the law even though it was retrospective in its effect. The Revenue appealed to this Court. Thus the question for decision in that case was whether an order proper and valid when made could be said to disclose a mistake apparent from the record merely because it became erroneous as a result of a subsequent amendment of the law which was retrospective in its operation. In delivering the judgment of the Court, Gajendragadkar, J., said:

‘At the time when the Income Tax Officer applied his mind to the question of rectifying the alleged mistake, there can be no doubt that he had to read the principal Act as containing the inserted proviso as from April 1, 1952. If that be the true position then the order which he made giving credit to the respondent for Rs 50,603-15-0 is plainly and obviously inconsistent with a specific and clear provision of the statute and that must inevitably be treated as a mistake of law apparent from the record. If a mistake of fact apparent from the record of the assessment order can be rectified under Section 35 we see no reason why a mistake of law which is glaring and obvious cannot be similarly rectified.’

The decision of the Privy Council in CIT Vrs. Khem Chand Ram Chand, (1938) 6 ITR 414 was referred to.

19. Counsel for the appellant sought to distinguish both those cases : Venkatachalm case, (1958) 34 ITR 143, 149 and Khem Chand case, (1938) 6 ITR 414 on the ground that the record there considered was the assessment record of that year and the Income Tax Officer did not have to go to the records of the previous year. That is a distinction without a difference. If, for instance, the Income Tax Officer had found that in Assessment Year 1952-53 there was an apparent arithmetical mistake in the account of the written down value of the properties which resulted in a corresponding mistake in the assessment of the year in controversy could he not take the corrected figure for the purposes of the assessment and could it be said that the mistake was not apparent from the record. A fortiori if he discovered that the very basis of the different assessments was erroneous because of an initial mistake in determining the written down value could it be said that this would not be a mistake apparent from the record. And if in order to determine the correct written down value the Income Tax Officer makes correct calculations, can it be said that it is not rectifying a mistake apparent from the record but is de hors it.”

6.10. Being thus the gamut of rectifying the mistake/error apparent on the face of the record, under the scheme of the GST statutes the returns are self-assessed and thereby it can be comprehended within the meaning of “assessment”. The figures and facts due to human error reflected in such returns and discovered subsequently could be rectified as “clerical or arithmetical error, arising from any accidental slip or omission”.

6.11. It may be apposite to have reference to Aberdare Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. CBDT & Customs GST 585/89 GSTL 6 (Bombay)/2024 SCC OnLine Bom 4122 wherein the following observations made in Star Engineers (I) (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India[2024] 102 GST 33/81 GSTL 460 (Bombay)/2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2682 are quoted, while allowing the petition:

“12. Having considered the statutory ambit of Section 37, 38 and 39, we are of the clear opinion that the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 37 read with Section 38 and sub-sections (9) and (10) of Section 39 need to be purposively interpreted. We cannot read sub-section (3) of Section 37 to mean that the assessee would be prevented from placing the correct position and having accurate particulars in regard to all the details in the GST returns being filed by the assessee and that there would not be any scope for any bona fide, and inadvertent rectification/correction. This would presuppose that any inadvertent error which had occurred in filing of the returns, once is permitted to be rectified, any technicality not making a window for such rectification, ought not to defeat the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 37 read with the provisions of sub-section (9) of Section 39 read de hors the provisos.

13. In our opinion, the proviso ought not to defeat the intention of the legislature as borne out on a bare reading of sub-section (3) of Section 37 and subsection (9) of Section 39 in the category of cases when there is a bona fide and inadvertent error in furnishing any particulars in filing of returns, accompanied with the fact that there is no loss of revenue whatsoever in permitting the correction of such mistake. Any contrary interpretation of subsection (3) of Section 37 read with sub-sections (9) and (10) of Section 39 would lead to absurdity and/or bring a regime that GST returns being maintained by the department having incorrect particulars become sacrosanct, which is not what is acceptable to the GST regime, wherein every aspect of the returns has a cascading effect. This is necessarily required to be borne in mind when considering the cases of inadvertent human errors creeping into the filing of GST returns.

14. Applying such principles to the facts of the present case, in our opinion, the State Tax Officer had all materials before it which went to show that there was nothing illegal and/or that what had happened at the end of the petitioner was that the invoices generated by the petitioner under the bill-to-ship-to-model for delivery of goods to third party vendors of BAL of which input tax credit for the invoices in question, were not availed by BAL due to error of credit not being reflected in the GSTR-1, as the petitioner had mentioned GSTIN of third party instead of GSTIN of BAL. This is also accepted by the State Tax Officer in the impugned communication.

15. As a result of the above discussion, in our opinion, the State Tax officer ought to have granted the petitioner’s request to rectify/amend the Form GSTR-1 for the period July 2021, November 2021 and January 2022, either through Online or manual means.

16. We also find that the petitioner’s reliance on the decision as noted by us is quite apposite. In Sun Dye Chem Vrs. Assistant Commissioner, (2021) 84 GSTR 237 (Mad) =”2020″ SCC OnLine Mad 28156, learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court considered a similar case wherein an error was committed by the petitioner in filing of details relating to credit. The error was to the effect that what should have figured in the CGST/SGST column was inadvertently reflected in the IGST column. It was not the case of the department that the error was deliberate and was intended to gain any undue benefit by the petitioner and in fact, by reason of the error, the customers of the petitioner were denied credit which they claim to be legitimately entitled to. It was also an error which was not initially noted by the petitioner, and on account of the error, the customers of the petitioner would be denied credit which they claimed to be legitimately entitled to, owing to the fact that the credit stands reflected in the wrong column. It is in these circumstances, after examining the relevant provisions which we have already discussed, the learned Single Judge observed that in the absence of an enabling mechanism, the assessee should not be prejudiced from availing credit which they are otherwise legitimately entitled to. The Court observed that an error committed by the petitioner is an inadvertent human error and the petitioner should not be prevented from rectifying the same and accordingly, allowed the petition.

17. A similar view was taken in the Pentacle Plant Machineries Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. GST Council, (2022) 107 GSTR 23 (Mad) =”2023″ SCC OnLine Mad 16796 which also followed the decision in Sun Dye Chem Vrs. Assistant Commissioner, (2021) 84 GSTR 237 (Mad) =”2020″ SCC OnLine Mad 28156.

18. We also note that the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in Shiva Jyoti Construction Vrs. CBEC, (2024) 123 GSTR 214 =”2023″ SCC OnLine Ori 66 was considering the case wherein the petitioner had prayed for a relief that the petitioner be permitted to rectify the GST returns filed in September 2017 and March 2018 which was filed inadvertently in Form-B2B instead of Form B2C as was wrongly filed under the GSTR-1 in order to get input tax credit benefit by a third party namely M/s. Odisha Construction Corporation Ltd. The last date for filing of return was 31 March 2019 and the rectification should have been carried out by 13 April 2019. The petitioner contended that an error came to be noticed after the said third party held up the running bill amount of the petitioner by informing it of the error on 21 January 2020. The petitioner contended that thereafter it was making a request to the department to correct the GSTR-1 form, but it was not allowed. It is in these circumstances, the Court considering the fact that in permitting the petitioner to rectify such error, there was no loss of revenue whatsoever to the department, that it was only about the ITC benefit which was to be given to the customer of the petitioner, failing which a prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. The Division Bench referring to the decision in Sun Dye Chem (supra) granted the prayer of the petitioner for setting aside the letter of rejection as impugned in the proceedings and permitting the petitioner to resubmit the corrected returns in Form— B2B under GSTR-1 for the period in question.

19. The Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in Mahalaxmi Infra Contract Ltd. Vrs. GST Council, (2022) 107 GSTR 34 (Jhar) =”2022″ SCC OnLine Jhar 1419 has taken a similar view wherein the Division Bench after considering the rival contentions and the scheme of the legislation, allowed the petition considering the fact that there was no loss of revenue, if such rectification as prayed for by the petitioner was to be granted.

20. On the interpretation of the provisions as made by us and the common thread running through the decisions as noted above, it would lead us to observe that the GST regime as contemplated under the GST Law unlike the prior regime, has evolved a scheme which is largely based on the electronic domain. The diversity, in which the traders and the assessees in our country function, with the limited expertise and resources they would have, cannot be overlooked, in the expectation the present regime would have in the traders/ assessees complying with the provisions of the GST Laws. There are likely to be inadvertent and bona fide human errors, in the assessees adopting themselves to the new regime. For a system to be understood and operate perfectly, it certainly takes some time. The provisions of law are required to be alive to such considerations and it is for such purpose the substantive provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 37 and sub-section (9) of Section 39 minus the proviso, have permitted rectification of inadvertent errors.

21. We may also observe that the situation like in the present case, was also the situation in the proceedings before the different High Courts as noted by us above, wherein the errors of the assessee were inadvertent and bona fide. There was not an iota of an illegal gain being derived by the assessees. In fact, the scheme of the GST laws itself would contemplate correct data to be available in each and every return of tax, being filed by the assessees. Any incorrect particulars on the varied aspects touching the GST returns would have serious cascading effect, prejudicial not only to the assessee, but also to the third parties.

22. It is considering such object and the ground realities, the law would be required to be interpreted and applied by the Department. This necessarily would mean, that a bona fide, inadvertent error in furnishing details in a GST return needs to be recognized, and permitted to be corrected by the department, when in such cases the department is aware that there is no loss of revenue to the Government. Such free play in the joint requires an eminent recognition. The department needs to avoid unwarranted litigation on such issues, and make the system more assessee friendly. Such approach would also foster the interest of revenue in the collection of taxes.”

6.12. Aforesaid decision of Bombay High Court in Aberdare Technologies (P.) Ltd. (supra) was carried to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. While dismissing the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.6332 of 2025, in CBDT and Customs v. Aberdare Technologies (P.) Ltd.  (SC)/2025 SCC OnLine SC 1323, it has been held as follows:

“1. Delay condoned.

2. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment which is, in fact, just and fair, as there is no loss of revenue. Hence, the present special leave petition is dismissed.

3. The petitioner, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, must re-examine the provisions/timelines fixed for correcting the bona fide errors. Time lines should be realist as lapse/defect invariably is realized when input tax credit is denied to the purchaser when benefit of tax paid is denied. Purchaser is not at fault, having paid the tax amount. He suffers because he is denied benefit of tax paid by him. Consequently, he has to make double payment. Human errors and mistakes are normal, and errors are also made by the Revenue. Right to correct mistakes in the nature of clerical or arithmetical error is a right that flows from right to do business and should not be denied unless there is a good justification and reason to deny benefit of correction. Software limitation itself cannot be a good justification, as software are meant ease compliance and can be configured. Therefore, we exercise our discretion and dismiss the special leave petition.

4. Decisions of the High Courts in Bar Code India Limited Vrs. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 13853 and Yokohama India Private Limited Vrs. State of Telangana, (2023) 108 GSTR 115″, prima facie, do not lay down good law in this regard. Ratio therein may be examined in another case.

5. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

6.13. With the above discussion, there can be no two opinions in mind, but the firm view is that clerical or arithmetical mistakes can be allowed to be rectified. The opposite parties should not be in a position to deny rectification cursing the TIME to have elapsed. “Mistake apparent on the face of the record” or “mistake apparent from record” stands at contradistinction with “revise, review or reapprise one’s own decision”; as such, the undisputed fact, as is admitted by the counsel for the both sides, demonstrates that deposit of Goods and Services Tax has been made in the account of the opposite party No.2-RVNL in GSTIN bearing No.21AACCR5652AlD8 (relating to TDS) instead of GSTIN bearing No.21AACCR5652AlZZ (Regular GST Registration). It is perceptible that there is manual error in typing the figure and alphabet “D8” in place of “ZZ” at the end of “21AACCR5652Al”. No sooner was it detected, the petitioner in order to rectify the mistake, approached the GST authority by way of representation vide Letter dated 23.06.2025 addressed to the concerned GST authority enclosed therewith the relevant and related documents, like invoices for allowing it opportunity to rectify.

6.14. Though the said representation could have been attended to with expediency, as the underlying policy for introduction of GST law is hassle-free and to show friendly approach towards taxpayer, the Assistant Commissioner (Law), GST and Central Excise, Bhubaneswar instead of instructing the concerned authority to do the needful, issued Letter bearing C.No. 1(10)1/262/LAW/BBSR/2025, dated 08.09.2025 addressing the Junior Standing Counsel, with the following:

“In this regard, it is submitted that the error of depositing the tax under the wrong GSTIN made by the petitioner during the months of May, 2023 and June, 2023 could have been duly rectified by the petitioner either in the subsequent month’s GSTR-1 return or, at the latest, while filing the annual return in Form GSTR-9 for the relevant Financial Year. However, the statutory timelines prescribed under the GST law for making such rectifications have already lapsed. Consequently, at present, there exists no enabling provision under the CGST Act or the corresponding Rules, nor is there any functional mechanism available on the GST portal, which permits either the petitioner or the Department to carry out rectification of the said error. Hence, the claim of the petitioner is not legally sustainable in the absence of any statutory provision allowing such correction.”

6.15. From the tenor of such instruction, it does manifest that the Department has accepted the deposit, but under a wrong account. The petitioner has explained that when the payment with respect to supplies made to RVNL is stopped for non-deposit of amount of tax for earlier transactions, it could come to its knowledge that error crept in while typing out the GST registration number of opposite party no.2; but none has set up objection as to deposit made in the account of RVNL. The Assistant Commissioner (Law) should have been more considerate in advising the concerned authority, rather than cut sorry figure on the plea of lapse of period. From the documents enclosed to the writ petition it transpires that the fact in the statement of the petitioner and the explanation offered by the petitioner is well-founded.

6.16. This Court is constrained to observe that when the opposite parties have admitted that the petitioner has deposited the tax due, on technical plea they should not have denied rectification as sought for by the petitioner. Doing so, would tantamount to enforcing double taxation. For the same transaction the petitioner cannot be fastened with liability twice. Such a recourse cannot be countenanced in law.

7. It may deserve to be quoted from a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (nine-Judge Bench) Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (SC)/(1997) 5 SCC 536 =(1998) 111 STC 467:

“Article 265 of the Constitution has to be construed in the light of the goal and the ideals set out in the Preamble to the Constitution and in Articles 38 and 39 thereof. The concept of economic justice demands that in the case of indirect taxes like Central Excises duties and Customs duties, the tax collected without the authority of law shall not be refunded to the petitioner-plaintiff unless he alleges and establishes that he has not passed on the burden of duty to a third party and that he has himself borne the burden of the said duty.”

8. Considering the fact-situation and arguments advanced by the counsel for the respective parties, the human error in reflecting correct GSTIN the deposit of tax has been credited to “21AACCR5652AlD8” (relating to TDS) instead of “21AACCR5652AlZZ” (regular). However, both the GSTIN belong to the same recipient, namely Rail Vikas Nigam Limited. There is no allegation that the petitioner has passed on the tax burden twice. Therefore, there appears no impediment for the opposite parties-authorities to take a pragmatic approach to mitigate the hardship faced by the petitioner, particularly when the facts are not disputed and there is no objection as to receipt of amount of tax. Denying the rectification would tantamount to double taxation in the hands of the petitioner. No plea is also raised and possibly could not be raised by the opposite parties with respect to “unjust enrichment” as exposited from Mafatlal Industries Ltd. (supra).

9. In the wake of the above, in the light of the discussions made keeping in view decisions referred to supra it is apt to direct the opposite parties-Goods and Services Tax Authorities to take effective steps within a period of eight weeks from date by permitting the petitioner to amend/rectify the return for the tax periods in question relating to Financial Year 2023-24 and dispose of the representation dated 25.06.2025 accordingly.

9.1. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with the above observation(s) and directions and the pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly, but in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to cost.

I agree.