Case Law Details
Moothaveettil Elvana Ramesh Kumar Vs Union of India (Kerala High Court)
The Kerala High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 73 of the KSGST Act, 2017 for the assessment year 2018-19. The dispute arose because the petitioner mistakenly set off eligible Input Tax Credit (ITC) available under the IGST head by claiming it under the CGST and SGST heads while discharging output tax liability for the period from April 2018 to March 2019.
The petitioner contended that the issue had already been decided in favour of taxpayers by a Division Bench of the High Court in Rejimon Padikapparambil Alex v. Union of India and Others. After hearing the parties, the Court held that the issue was fully covered by the earlier Division Bench judgment. Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned order. At the same time, it clarified that the State Government is at liberty to approach the GST Council, in light of the principles laid down in the earlier judgment, for resolving issues relating to settlement of amounts between the departments. The writ petition was disposed of on those terms.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The petitioner is a registered taxpayer under the provisions of the CGST/SGST Act. The challenge raised in this writ petition is against Ext.P2 order passed by the 5th respondent under Section 73 of the KSGST Act 2017, pertaining to the assessment year, 2018-2019. The aforesaid order was passed in view of the fact that the petitioner mistakenly set off the eligible Input Tax Credit under the head of IGST and claimed it under the heads of CGST and SGST against the Output Tax Liability for the period from April 2018 to March 2019. The challenge is raised mainly on the ground that, the issue raised by the petitioner is decided in favour of the petitioner by a Division Bench of this Court in Rejimon Padikapparambil Alex v. Union of India and Others [2024 KHC OnLine 7215].
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned CGC for the 1st respondent and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents 2 to 5, I find that, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the issue is indeed covered in favour of the petitioner as per Ext.P4 judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court.
In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of, quashing Ext.P2. However, it is clarified that, the respondent State may move the GST Council, in the light of the principles laid down in Ext.P4, to get the issue regarding the settlement of the amounts between the Departments resolved.
Author Bio
