Case Law Details
Saji S. Vs. Commissioner, State GST Department (Kerala High Court at Ernakulam)
The petitioner, who is the consignee and transporter, insists that the consignor paid the tax and penalty under that only based on the ASTO’s directions. But the fact remains that the remittance must have been under the head ‘IGST’. So the authorities have refused to release the goods. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
Section 77 provides for the refund of the tax paid mistakenly under one head instead of another. But Rule 4 speaks of adjustment. Where the amount of refund is completely adjusted against any outstanding demand under the Act, an order giving details of the adjustment is to be issued in Part A of FORM GST RFD-07. The petitioner’s counsel lays stress on this process of adjustment and asserts that the amount remitted under one head can be adjusted under another head, for the demand can be any amount under the Act.
Under these circumstances, I find no difficulty for the respondent officials to allow the petitioner’s request and get the amount transferred from the head ‘SGST’ to ‘IGST’. It may, as the Government Pleader has contended, take some time, but it is inequitable for the authorities to let the petitioner suffer on that count.
So I hold that the 2nd respondent will release the goods forthwith along with the vehicle and, then, ensure that the tax and penalty already stood remitted under the ‘SGST’ is transferred to the head ‘IGST’.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
