Divya S.R. Vs Union of India
Date: January 2, 2024
Subject Matter
Mistaken claim of ITC under CGST and SGST instead of IGST: Court orders Revenue to to consider the rectification application and pass necessary orders
Summary
The petitioner sought relief through a writ petition requesting the set off of Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) that was inadvertently claimed under CGST and SGST for the period July 2017 to March 2018. The petitioner had mistakenly claimed the entire input tax credit under CGST and SGST instead of IGST while filing the monthly return in GSTR 3B for July 2017. The petitioner filed a rectification application under Rule 89(1)(A) of the Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The court directed the 6th respondent to consider the rectification application and pass necessary orders, ensuring that the petitioner is given an opportunity for a hearing before the final order. The court also ordered that no coercive measures be taken against the petitioner for tax recovery based on the original assessment order until a final decision is reached on the rectification application.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The petitioner, an assessee under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act/State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, has approached this Court in the present writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the 6th respondent to set off input tax credit of IGST to the tune of Rs.1,14,957/-, which was wrongly claimed under CGST and SGST for the period July, 2017 to March, 2018 against the output tax liability of the petitioner for the said period.
2. The financial year is of 2017-18. The petitioner had received IGST tax credit through inter state inward supply of goods. The total amount of IGST Credit as reflected in GSTR 2A was Rs.1,14,957/-. The petitioner while preferring monthly return in GSTR 3B for July, 2017, by mistake claimed the entire input tax credit of Rs.1,14,957/- under the heads of CGST and SGST, instead of claiming it under the head IGST. This mistake had resulted in passing the assessment order in Ext.P1. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has filed rectification application in GST RFD-01 on 21.12.2023 as provided under Rule 89(1)(A) of the Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. However, no decision has been taken on the said rectification application, Ext.P4, till date. He, therefore, submits that the 6th respondent may be directed to consider Ext.P4 application and pass necessary orders thereon, in accordance with law, and till a decision is taken on the said application as above, no coercive measure be taken against the petitioner for realisation of the tax assessed in Ext.P1 assessment order.
3. Smt.Jasmine M.M., learned Government Pleader, submits that Ext.P4 application has been filed only on 21.12.2023 and that this Court may direct the 6th respondent for consideration of the said application filed by the petitioner, and that the 6th respondent shall consider the application, in accordance with law, and pass necessary orders.
4. Considering the aforesaid submissions, and the facts of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with direction to the 6th respondent to consider Ext.P4 application filed by the petitioner/assessee and pass necessary orders thereon expeditiously, in accordance with law. Needless to say that the petitioner could be afforded an opportunity of hearing before final order is passed on Ext.P4 application. Until final order is passed on Ext.P4 application as above, no coercive measures shall be taken against the petitioner for realisation of the tax amountassessed in Ext.P1 order.
Pending interlocutory application, if any, in the present writ petition stands dismissed.