GST LITIGATION UPDATE

Wrong GSTIN, Not Lost Credit: Tripura High Court Orders the Portal Opened to Correct a Genuine Filing Error

M/s Ashutosh Bandyopadhay v. Union of India & Ors. — W.P.(C) No. 379 of 2023, High Court of Tripura, Order dated 27.07.2026 [2026:THC:1040-DB]

By CA Chandrasekhar Kutty, Founding Partner, Sashthi Taxlegal Advisory Services LLP

The Development in One Line

A taxpayer filed its invoices for the period 01.05.2019 to 05.02.2020 against its GST TDS GSTIN instead of its regular GSTIN — and the Department refused correction on the familiar plea that “entries once made in the portal cannot be altered.” The Tripura High Court has now held that this stand is no longer correct in law, and directed the authorities to permit amendment of Form GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B, online or through manual means, within four weeks.

Background of the Case

M/s Ashutosh Bandyopadhay, a registered partnership firm of Agartala, discovered that for the period 01.05.2019 to 05.02.2020 certain invoices had been reported in its GST TDS GSTIN rather than its regular GSTIN in Form GSTR-1. The error was not in dispute — the jurisdictional Superintendent himself, by a letter dated 29.11.2022, certified after verification with the portal that the invoices stood filed against the TDS GSTIN and not the regular GSTIN.

The consequence, however, was severe: unless the entries were shifted to the correct GSTIN, the recipient of the supplies — Engineering Projects (India) Limited — could not enjoy Input Tax Credit, even though the tax itself had been duly paid. When the firm sought rectification, the authorities declined, taking the stand in their counter-affidavit that jurisdictional officers possess no power or access to rectify a taxpayer’s returns, and that entries once submitted in the GST portal cannot be changed, altered or rectified.

What the High Court Held

A Division Bench of Hon’ble the Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Biswajit Palit allowed the writ petition. The reasoning proceeds along four clean steps:

• Precedent squarely covers the field. The Bombay High Court in Star Engineers (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [(2023) 2 HCC (Bom) 793] and again in Aberdare Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. CBIC [2024 SCC OnLine Bom 4122] held that Sections 37(3) and 39(9) of the CGST Act must be purposively interpreted — bona fide, inadvertent errors in returns must be permitted correction, and a technicality cannot defeat the substantive provisions.
• The Supreme Court has affirmed this line. Dismissing CBIC’s SLP in the Aberdare matter on 21.03.2025 [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1323], the Supreme Court described the Bombay High Court’s view as just and fair since there was no loss of revenue, and went further — the right to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes flows from the right to do business, and a software limitation can never be a good justification for denying it, since software is meant to ease compliance and can be configured. The Court even directed CBIC to re-examine the timelines fixed for correcting bona fide errors.
• Parliament itself has relaxed rigid timelines. The Bench took note of Section 16(5), inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 with retrospective effect from 01.07.2017, extending the time to avail ITC for FY 2017-18 to 2020-21 up to returns filed by 30.11.2021 — a legislative signal that the timelines in Section 16(4) were never meant to operate as an inflexible guillotine. The returns in question, pertaining to 2019-20, fell squarely within this window.
• Applying these principles, the Court held that the present case involved nothing more than filing invoices in the wrong GSTIN, with no loss of revenue to the exchequer at all — and the Department’s plea that portal entries cannot be altered “is no longer correct” in view of Star Engineers, Aberdare, and the Supreme Court’s affirmation.

The operative direction: the respondents shall permit the petitioner to amend/rectify Form GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B for the period 01.05.2019 to 05.02.2020, either through online or manual means, within four weeks.

Why This Judgment Matters

The “portal is frozen” defence has been the Revenue’s standard answer to every rectification request since 2017. What this judgment demonstrates is that the defence has now failed before three constitutional courts and the Supreme Court in succession — and for a reason that goes beyond sympathy: where tax has been paid and no revenue is lost, denying correction of a clerical error inflicts double payment on an innocent party, typically the recipient whose ITC hangs on the supplier’s reporting. The Supreme Court’s framing in Aberdare elevates the issue from procedure to principle — the right to correct a genuine mistake is an incident of the right to do business.

Equally significant is the direction that rectification be allowed “either through online or manual means.” Courts are no longer willing to allow the architecture of GSTN to dictate the boundaries of taxpayers’ substantive rights; if the system cannot accommodate the correction, the correction must happen outside the system.

Practical Takeaways for Taxpayers

• Wrong-GSTIN reporting — TDS GSTIN versus regular GSTIN, or one branch’s GSTIN for another — is a recurring error in multi-registration entities. Reconcile GSTR-1 reporting against the correct GSTIN periodically, not merely the aggregate turnover.
• Build the evidentiary record early: in this case, the Superintendent’s verification letter of 29.11.2022 confirming the error proved invaluable. Seek written verification from the jurisdictional officer as soon as an error is discovered.
• The twin tests that run through Star Engineers, Aberdare and now this ruling: the error must be bona fide and inadvertent, and there must be no loss of revenue. Anchor every rectification request on these two pillars, with a working demonstrating revenue neutrality.
• Recipients whose ITC is blocked by a supplier’s reporting error are not remediless — the supplier’s writ seeking rectification is a viable and now well-trodden route to unlock the credit.
• Invoke the full chain of authority in representations: Star Engineers (Bom HC), Aberdare Technologies (Bom HC), the Supreme Court’s dismissal of CBIC’s SLP dated 21.03.2025, and now Ashutosh Bandyopadhay (Tripura HC). A field formation confronted with this line of decisions has little room to persist with the frozen-portal plea.
• Where relief is granted, act within the window — here, four weeks — and keep proof of the amendment attempt, particularly if the manual route has to be used.

Our Take

For nine years, the GST system has treated the return as a confession that cannot be retracted — even where the officer himself certifies the mistake. This judgment, sitting atop the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Aberdare, marks the consolidation of a rectification jurisprudence that treats genuine human error with proportion rather than punishment. The direction to CBIC to re-examine correction timelines, noted with approval here, may well be the seed of a formal amnesty-style rectification window. Until then, taxpayers should remember: a clerical error is not a tax offence, and the portal is not a prison.

Citation: M/s Ashutosh Bandyopadhay v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 379 of 2023, High Court of Tripura at Agartala, order dated 27.07.2026 [2026:THC:1040-DB]. Authorities relied upon: Star Engineers (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2023) 2 HCC (Bom) 793; Aberdare Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. CBIC, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 4122; CBIC v. Aberdare Technologies Pvt. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1323 (SLP dismissed 21.03.2025); Section 16(5), CGST Act, 2017 inserted by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024.

Disclaimer: This update is for general information only and does not constitute professional advice. For case-specific guidance, please reach out to Sashthi Taxlegal Advisory Services LLP — Hosur • Bengaluru — www.sashthitaxlegal.com