Top Stories Taxpayer Claims IGST Refund instead of CGST/SGST mistakenly, fails to move any application to Correct Claim: Kerala HC dismisses Petition [Read Order] The taxpayer mistakenly claimed an Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) refund instead of Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) and State Goods and Services Tax (SGST), and subsequently failed to rectify the claim By Aiswarya Krishnadas – On March 28, 2024 5:47 pm – 2 mins read

In a recent ruling, the Kerala High Court dismissed the petition filed by a taxpayer who mistakenly claimed an Integrated Goods and Service Tax ( IGST ) refund instead of Central Goods Service Tax / State Goods and Service Tax ( CGST/SGST ) and failed to submit any application for correction. The petitioner is  a registered dealer under the provisions of the CGST Act and Kerala SGST Act, 2017 and the Rules made thereunder. The petitioner filed GST returns under the provisions of the GST Act pertaining to the year 2017-18. However, the Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) was issued to the petitioner in Form GST ASMT 10 dated 02.08.2020 and SCN dated 10.11.2022 followed.

The petitioner filed the reply to the said SCN, however, 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 to an extent of Rs. 47,048/- as SGST and same amount as CGST. The Counsel for the petitioner Aji V, Alan Priyadarshi and Sajeevan submitted that the petitioner instead of claiming the CGST/SGST claimed IGST and it was not a bonafide mistake committed by the petitioner. Therefore, for this bonafide mistake, disallowance of the input tax credit claimed by the petitioner does not appear to be correct. He further placed reliance on the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court in M/s. Orient Traders v. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Another would submit that for bonafide mistake the dealer/assessee should not be punished and the ITC claimed wrongly availed as IGST instead of CGST should be allowed.

A single member bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed Section 54 read with Section 49 prescribes for refund of excess tax etc., paid by the registered dealer by moving an application within the period of two years from the last date of filing the returns for the relevant year. In the present case, the financial year is of 2017- 18 for which the due date for filing the application for correcting the mistake or claiming the refund of the IGST was 23.04.2019. Admittedly, the petitioner did not move any application within the time prescribed and even the extended time.” The bench further clarified that within its limited jurisdiction, it cannot amend the statute, which prescribes a distinct time limit for filing such an application. Consequently, the bench did not find little merit in the writ petition and accordingly dismissed it.