Summary / Headnotes
Held - The Supreme Court noted that the same issue had already been decided in a three-judge bench ruling in Union of India vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 6520 of 2021, decided on 28 October 2021). In Bharti Airtel, the Court held that GSTR‑3B is a valid return under Section 39 and taxpayers must adhere to the format prescribed by the government. Since the Gujarat High Court's ruling in favor of AAP & Co. conflicted with the Bharti Airtel judgment, the Supreme Court overruled the Gujarat HC's decision (Para 2 to 5).
Appeal allowed
AI Summary of the Case
Question Answered
Issue 1: Whether GSTR-3B Can Be Treated as a Return Under Section 39 of the CGST Act. Views: The Gujarat High Court had held that GSTR-3B is not a return under Section 39 and allowed rectification of GSTR-3B to reflect correct input tax credit (ITC) for past periods. However, the SC noted that this view was expressly overruled in the three-Judge Bench decision in Union of India v. Bharti Airtel Ltd. [(2021) 13 SCALE 301 / (2021) 54 G.S.T.L. 257 (S.C.)], which held that GSTR-3B is a return under Section 39. Therefore, the basis of the Gujarat HC judgment in AAP and Company was no longer valid (Para 9).
Issue 2: Whether ITC for Earlier Tax Periods Can Be Adjusted in Later GSTR-3B Returns. Views: The Bharti Airtel ruling had already clarified that rectification of past GSTR-3B returns is not permissible once filed, and any adjustment must follow the statutory framework (i.e., through refund claims or audit reconciliations, not via retrospective editing of earlier returns). Thus, any similar relief granted by the Gujarat High Court to AAP and Company was also unsustainable (Para 10).
Issue 3: Whether the SC Should Entertain an Argument to Distinguish Bharti Airtel Judgment. Views: The respondent’s counsel in AAP & Co. attempted to distinguish the Bharti Airtel judgment. The SC rejected this argument outright, stating that once a larger Bench (three-Judge Bench) has overruled a judgment, the same cannot be distinguished to defend the overruled decision Para 11).
Citations
- 1) Union of India v. Bharti Airtel Ltd. — 2021 (54) G.S.T.L. 257 (S.C.)
Judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE THE BENCH OF
Mr. A.M. Khanwilkar and
Mr. C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.
UNION OF INDIA
Versus
AAP AND COMPANY
Civil Appeal No. 5978 of 2021, dated on 10-12-2021
REPRESENTED BY:
Shri Aman Lekhi, ASG
Ms. Praveena Gautam,
Ms. Nisha Bagchi,
Mr. Neela Kedar Gokhale and
Ms. Preeti Rani, Advocates and
M.K. Maroria, AOR, for the Appellant.
Shri Dr. Avinash Poddar,
Mr. Ashok Sikka,
Mr. Arvind Kumar,
Mr. Prahlad Narayan Singh,
Ms. Vivek Mishra,
Ms. Mansha Shukla and
Mr. Sameer Singh, Advocates and
Mr. Devendra Singh and
Ms. Neelam Singh, AOR, for the Respondent.
[Order]. –
This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 24-6-2019 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application No. 18962 of 2018 [2019 (26) G.S.T.L. 481 (Guj.)].
2. This judgment has been expressly overruled by a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 6520 of 2021 titled Union of India v. Bharti Airtel Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2021) 13 SCALE 301 = 2021 (54) G.S.T.L. 257 (S.C.).
3. Learned counsel for the respondent was at pains to persuade us that the three-Judge Bench judgment can be distinguished, without realizing that the three-Judge Bench judgment expressly overrules the impugned judgment. In such a case, the argument of distinguishing the three-Judge Bench judgment is not available.
4. The note submitted by the respondent is taken on record only to be rejected.
5. The appeal succeeds on the same terms as in Civil Appeal No. 6520 of 2021 titled Union of India v. Bharti Airtel Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2021) 13 SCALE 301 = 2021 (54) G.S.T.L. 257 (S.C.).
6. The civil appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
7. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.