Kerala HC Dismissed Writ & Denied Relief to Assessee Who Mistakenly Claimed IGST Instead of CGST/SGST

Case Detail: M Trans Corporation v. State Tax Officer - [2024] 160 taxmann.com 766 (Kerala)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.
• Aji V. Dev, Alan Priyadarshi Dev & S. Sajeevan, Advs. for the Petitioner. 
• Jasmin M.M., Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner was a registered dealer under the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017. The department issued the show cause notice to the petitioner in Form GST ASMT-10. The petitioner filed the reply to the said Show Cause Notice but the Assessing Authority rejected the contention of the petitioner and found that the petitioner had availed excess input tax credit in the financial year 2017-18 under IGST instead of SGST and CGST.

On the said amount the petitioner had been directed to pay the tax, interest and penalty. It filed writ petition against the demand and contended that assessee should not be punished and the ITC wrongly availed as IGST instead of CGST & SGST should be allowed.

High Court Held

The Honorable High Court noted that the petitioner had not moved any application within prescribed time and not even under extended time for claiming refund. As per Section 54 and Section 49, for refund of excess tax etc., paid by registered dealer, dealer must move an application within period of two years from last date of filing returns for relevant year.

In the instant case, the petitioner did not move any application within the time prescribed and even the extended time. Therefore, the Court in exercise of its limited jurisdiction could not amend statute and prescribe different time limit for moving such an application. Thus, the Court dismissed the petition.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Orient Traders v. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Another. [2023 (1) TMI 838 – Karnataka HC]