Saji S Vs Commissioner (Kerala High Court)
The petitioner, a registered dealer, purchased goods from Chennai and transported them to Kerala. During transit, the Assistant State Tax Officer (ASTO) detained the goods and issued Ext.P3 notice dated 30.09.2018.
Pursuant to the demand contained in Ext.P3, the consignor paid the tax and penalty, as evidenced by Ext.P4 payment receipt. However, the payment was made under the SGST head instead of IGST. The petitioner, who was the consignee and transporter, contended that the consignor made the payment under SGST based on the ASTO’s directions. Despite payment of the tax and penalty, the authorities refused to release the goods on the ground that the remittance ought to have been made under the IGST head. The petitioner therefore filed the writ petition.
The petitioner relied on Section 77 of the GST Act and Rule 4(1) of the GST Refund Rules, 2017, particularly the proviso to Rule 4(1). It was contended that even if the payment under SGST was treated as a mistake, the statutory provisions empowered the authorities to transfer or adjust the amount from SGST to IGST.
The Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner could instead pay the amount under IGST and thereafter seek a refund of the amount paid under SGST. According to the Government Pleader, adjustment by the authorities would require more than a couple of months.
