Case Law Details
Divya S.R. Vs Union of India (Kerala High Court)
In a recent case before the Kerala High Court, Divya S.R., an assessee under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act and State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, sought relief through a writ petition. The petitioner requested a mandamus directing the 6th respondent to set off Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) worth Rs.1,14,957/-, which was inadvertently claimed under Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) and State Goods and Services Tax (SGST) for the period July 2017 to March 2018.
Key Points of the Case:
1. Mistaken ITC Claim:
- The petitioner received IGST tax credit through interstate inward supply of goods during the financial year 2017-18.
- While filing the monthly return in GSTR 3B for July 2017, the petitioner mistakenly claimed the entire input tax credit of Rs.1,14,957/- under CGST and SGST instead of IGST.
- The mistake resulted in the issuance of an assessment order (Ext.P1).
2. Rectification Application:
- The petitioner filed a rectification application (Ext.P4) in GST RFD-01 on 21.12.2023 under Rule 89(1)(A) of the Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.
- The rectification sought correction of the inadvertent claim made in the monthly return.
3. Relief Sought:
- The petitioner urged the court to direct the 6th respondent to consider Ext.P4 application and pass necessary orders.
- Requested that until a decision is taken on the rectification application, no coercive measures be taken against the petitioner for the tax assessed in Ext.P1 order.
4. Government Pleader’s Response:
- The learned Government Pleader acknowledged the filing of Ext.P4 application on 21.12.2023.
- Suggested that the court may direct the 6th respondent to consider the application and pass necessary orders, ensuring compliance with the law.
5. Court’s Direction:
- Considering the submissions and the case’s facts, the court disposed of the writ petition.
- Directed the 6th respondent to consider Ext.P4 application filed by the petitioner and pass necessary orders expeditiously, adhering to legal procedures.
- Emphasized that the petitioner should be given an opportunity for a hearing before the final order on the rectification application.
- Issued an order to refrain from coercive measures for tax realization as assessed in Ext.P1 order until a final decision is reached on Ext.P4 application.
Conclusion: The Kerala High Court’s directive ensures the consideration of the rectification application, allowing the petitioner an opportunity to correct the mistaken ITC claim. The court’s emphasis on a fair hearing reflects the importance of procedural justice in tax matters. Until the application is adjudicated, the court shields the petitioner from coercive measures for tax recovery based on the original assessment order.
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 amount
assessed in Ext.P1 order.
Pending interlocutory application, if any, in the present writ petition stands dismissed.
Author Bio
