Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dev Engineers (through its sole proprietor Ritaben Sanjaykumar Panchal), filed a Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Gujarat High Court challenging three assessment orders dated 05.08.2023, 18.10.2024, and 03.05.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Unit 24, Gandhinagar and other respondents. The dispute arose from a show cause notice (ASMT-10) alleging a shortfall of Rs. 6,99,750 in tax payment for FY 2019-20. The petitioner contended that the tax liability had been fully discharged, but due to a clerical error, the corresponding invoices were uploaded in GSTR-1 for FY 2020-21 instead of FY 2019-20, creating an apparent discrepancy. During the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, Mr. Harshvardhan Sharma, tendered a communication dated 03.02.2026 from the Sales Tax Officer-1, Unit-24, Gandhinagar. The communication stated that upon a fresh review of the documents submitted with the petition, the Department found the petitioner's claim regarding the clerical error to be factually correct. It confirmed that the tax liability for the disputed invoices had been discharged and the shortfall was merely a timing difference in reporting, with no actual loss to the exchequer. In light of this concession, both parties urged the Court to remand the matter. However, the Court, after considering the communication, held that since the Department itself conceded the error and confirmed satisfaction of tax liability, the impugned orders were unsustainable. The Court quashed the orders dated 05.08.2023, 18.10.2024, and 03.05.2025 and allowed the petition. Rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Goods and Services Tax - Assessment - Clerical Error - Section 73 of the CGST/Gujarat GST Act - The petitioner challenged assessment orders alleging a shortfall of Rs. 6,99,750 due to a clerical error in uploading invoices in GSTR-1 for FY 2020-21 instead of FY 2019-20. The Department, upon fresh review, conceded that the tax liability was already discharged and the discrepancy was a timing difference, not evasion. The Court quashed the impugned orders as the underlying tax was satisfied and there was no revenue loss. (Paras 2-3) B) Goods and Services Tax - Remand - Concession by Department - When the Department itself concedes the factual correctness of the petitioner's claim, remand is unnecessary. The Court accepted the communication dated 03.02.2026 and set aside the orders dated 05.08.2023, 18.10.2024, and 03.05.2025. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned assessment orders under the GST Act were sustainable when the tax liability had already been discharged but invoices were uploaded in a subsequent financial year due to a clerical error.
Final Decision
The impugned orders dated 05.08.2023, 18.10.2024, and 03.05.2025 are quashed. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Clerical error in tax reporting
- timing difference not evasion
- no revenue loss
- remand not required when department concedes error
