Rectification of GST Returns: Right to Amend GSTR-3B in Line with GSTR-1

1. Introduction

This commentary examines the Patna High Court’s decision in Om Traders v. Union of India, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16509 of 2024, delivered on 13 May 2025 by Justices P. B. Bajanthri and S. B. Pd. Singh. Om Traders, a Bihar-based two-wheeler dealer, inadvertently mis-reported Integrated GST (IGST) instead of Central GST (CGST) and State GST (SGST) in its GSTR-3B return for April 2019. Despite timely filing of GSTR-1 and a follow-up application for correction, the tax authorities refused adjustment and demanded fresh payment under CGST/SGST, offering only a refund route under IGST. Key issues include whether a taxpayer can amend a filed GSTR-3B to match GSTR-1, and whether the absence of an online rectification facility can be cured by manual amendment, in light of natural justice and Article 265 of the Constitution.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The High Court set aside the tax authority’s rejection of the rectification request dated 6 May 2020.
The Court directed authorities to permit Om Traders to amend its GSTR-3B figures to match its GSTR-1 within one month, by manual application if the portal does not allow online edits.
The relief mirrors the Bombay High Court’s order in Aberdare Technologies Pvt Ltd & Anr v. CBIC, upheld by the Supreme Court, and relies on the principle laid down in Engineers (I) Pvt Ltd v. Union of India.
The writ petition was allowed, and the authorities were ordered to redress any remaining grievances within two months.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

Aberdare Technologies Pvt Ltd & Anr v. CBIC & Ors (Bombay HC WP No. 7912/2024; SLP (C) 6332/2025)—The Bombay High Court directed respondents to reopen the portal or accept manual amendments of GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B within specified timelines. The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP, affirming the right to rectify clerical errors post-filing.

Engineers (I) Pvt Ltd v. Union of India & Ors—The Bombay High Court recognized that the absence of a statutory rectification mechanism cannot defeat natural justice, permitting post-facto adjustments in GST returns to correct bona fide mistakes.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

Absence of statutory bar: The Court noted no express prohibition on correcting a return once filed; Section 49(5) CGST Act does not preclude amendment, but only prescribes self-assessment.
Principle of natural justice & Article 265: Denial of correction and forcing double payment violates natural justice and the constitutional mandate that no tax shall be levied but by authority of law.
Consistency with higher precedents: By following Aberdare and Engineers (I), the Court ensured uniformity in GST jurisprudence across jurisdictions.
Practical necessity: The respondent authority could not demonstrate any revenue loss or prejudice to the exchequer if the figures were aligned with the original GSTR-1.

3.3 Impact

This ruling has far-reaching implications:

Taxpayer relief: It empowers GST registrants to rectify bona fide clerical errors without fear of penalization or forced double payment.
Administrative practice: Tax authorities may need to upgrade or configure their IT portals to allow retrospective amendments or establish a robust manual filing system.
Judicial consistency: The decision reinforces the binding effect of High Court rulings in GST matters and underscores the role of natural justice in tax administration.
Legislative reform: The judgment may prompt the legislature to codify a rectification mechanism in the CGST Rules, ensuring clarity and uniform application.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

GSTR-1: Monthly or quarterly statement of outward supplies (sales) filed by a GST registrant.
GSTR-3B: Simple monthly self-declaration summarizing total supplies, tax liability, and input tax credit (ITC).
IGST vs CGST/SGST: IGST applies on inter-state supplies; CGST and SGST apply on intra-state supplies, shared between Union and State.
Article 265: The Constitution mandates that no tax can be levied or collected except by authority of law.
Section 49(5) CGST Act: Mandates that self-assessed tax be paid as declared; does not address post-filing corrections.

5. Conclusion

The Patna High Court in Om Traders v. Union of India has established a crucial precedent: taxpayers have a right to rectify bona fide clerical mistakes in their GSTR-3B returns to align with GSTR-1, even post-filing, and authorities must facilitate such correction—online or manually. This decision secures taxpayer interests, enforces natural justice, and harmonizes GST administration with existing high-court precedents. Moving forward, the GST regime is likely to evolve with clearer procedural mechanisms for return rectification, reducing compliance burdens and litigation.