Kalleppuram Metals Vs Union of India
Date: December 8, 2024
Court: High Court
Bench:
Type: Writ Petition
Subject Matter
Using CGST/SGST instead of IGST without any actual loss of revenue is allowed
Summary
The case involves a writ petition challenging an order from the Appellate Authority regarding the wrongful cross availing of input tax credit by a partnership firm engaged in the wholesale trading of iron and steel. The firm had been registered under the CGST/SGST Acts of 2017. The matter arose from a show cause notice indicating discrepancies noted during the scrutiny of returns for the financial year 2017-2018. It was alleged that the petitioner incorrectly availed CGST and SGST input tax credits that were not compliant with the requirements laid out in Section 16(2) of the GST Act. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand for an amount of ₹14,57,108 along with interest of ₹12,03,691 due to excess input tax credit availed, and additionally imposed a penalty of ₹1,45,710 under Section 73(1). On appeal, the Appellate Authority upheld these decisions. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the court to challenge the order. The court noted a recent judgment (Rejimon Padickapparambil Alex v. Union of India) that established the concept that input tax credit in the electronic ledger should be viewed as a collective pool for different tax types (IGST, CGST, and SGST) rather than being strictly compartmentalized. The court concluded that the mistake made by the petitioner was technical—essentially, using CGST/SGST instead of IGST without any actual loss of revenue—and therefore set aside the impugned order, directing the Appellate Authority to reconsider the matter in light of the new judgment. Thus, the writ petition was allowed, and a fresh evaluation was mandated.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The challenge raised in this writ petition is against the order of the Appellate Authority confirming the findings of the Adjudicating Authority regarding the wrong cross availment of input tax credit by the petitioner. The impugned order confirmed the penalty and interest imposed on the petitioner.
2. Petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in wholesale trading of iron and steel and is a registered dealer under the CGST/SGST Acts, 2017. Pursuant to a show cause notice alleging discrepancies noticed during scrutiny of returns for the financial year 2017-2018, it was alleged that petitioner had availed CGST and SGST wrongly. It was stated that CGST and SGST credits did not comply with the eligibility criteria prescribed under Section 16(2) of the GST Act and there were no documents to support the tax credit to the extent claimed by the petitioner. The show cause notice further stated that the IGST credit which the appellant claimed was wrongly treated as CGST and SGST credits. The Adjudicating Authority by Ext.P3 Adjudication order confirmed the demand of Rs.14,57,108/- along with corresponding interest of Rs.12,03,691/- towards excess input tax credit availed by the petitioner. A penalty of Rs.1,45,710/- was also imposed under Section 73(1) of the GST Act. On appeal, the said demand and consequential penalty were confirmed by Ext.P6 order. Petitioner has thus approached this Court challenging the aforesaid proceedings.
3. I have heard Adv. Karthika Maria, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Dr. Thushara James, the learned Senior Government Pleader.
4. Petitioner is alleged to have wrongly claimed IGST credit as CGST and SGST credits. However, in a recent judgment of this Court in Rejimon Padickapparambil Alex v. Union of India [2024 KHC Online 7215], on an almost similar situation, it was observed that the input tax credit available in the electronic credit ledger should be considered as a pool of funds designated for different types of taxes, such as IGST, CGST and SGST. It was further observed that the said credit ledger represents a wallet with compartments for IGST, CGST and SGST funds and the entire wallet has to be taken into consideration, instead of individual compartments.
5. The aforementioned decision elucidates that Section 73 of the GST Act is attracted only when tax has not been paid or when there is a short payment or when any amount has been erroneously refunded, or where any input tax has been wrongly availed or utilised for any reason.
6. In the instant case, it cannot be stated that petitioner had wrongly availed input tax credit. Even going by the orders of the Adjudicating Authority the mistake committed by the petitioner was at the most a technical one, since CGST/SGST was availed instead of IGST. The alleged excess claim of CGST and SGST was due to the availability of eligible IGST credit. Since the GST system treats the electronic credit ledger as a unified source, there cannot be a wrongful availing or utilization of input tax credit in the instant case. There cannot also be any loss of revenue as well, arising from the utilization of CGST/ SGST instead of IGST.
7. Taking note of the aforesaid, I am of the view that the impugned order Ext.P6 is liable to be set aside and a reconsideration ought to be directed in the light of the judgment mentioned above. Accordingly, Ext.P6 is set aside, and the third respondent is directed to reconsider the appeal filed by the petitioner afresh in light of the judgment in Rejimon Padickapparambil Alex v. Union of India [2024 KHC Online 7215].
The writ petition is allowed as above.