TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>GST demand proceedings quashed for technical error in reporting IGST credit as CGST/SGST under Section 73</h1> <h3>Rejimon Padickapparambil Alex Versus Union Of India, State Of Kerala, Goods And Services Tax Network, New Delhi, Commissioner, Office Of The Commissioner, State Goods And Service Thiruvananthapuram, State Tax Officer Ernakulam.</h3> Rejimon Padickapparambil Alex Versus Union Of India, State Of Kerala, Goods And Services Tax Network, New Delhi, Commissioner, Office Of The Commissioner, ... Issues Involved:1. Mismatch between Form GSTR-2A and Form GSTR-3B due to incorrect reporting of IGST credit.2. Demand for return of CGST/SGST amounts allegedly utilized in excess.3. Legality of proceedings under Section 73 of the GST Act.4. Revenue neutrality and procedural justice in tax administration.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Mismatch between Form GSTR-2A and Form GSTR-3B:The appellant, a registered dealer under GST, incorrectly reported the IGST component in Form GSTR-3B during the assessment year 2017-2018. Instead of showing the IGST amount separately, the appellant inadvertently showed it as nil and added the bifurcated CGST and SGST components to the existing figures. This led to a mismatch between Form GSTR-2A and Form GSTR-3B. It is significant to note that the IGST amount was split into CGST and SGST components in Form GSTR-3B, which was undisputed.2. Demand for return of CGST/SGST amounts:The Assessing Authority identified the mismatch and issued a notice demanding the return of the CGST/SGST amounts allegedly utilized in excess. The proceedings culminated in an order confirming the demand against the appellant. The appellant contended that there was no revenue loss or excess credit availed, as the credit was legitimately available due to the IGST paid on inter-state inward supplies.3. Legality of proceedings under Section 73 of the GST Act:The proceedings were initiated under Section 73 of the GST Act, which applies when tax has not been paid, short paid, or when input tax has been wrongly availed or utilized. The court found that there was no wrong availment of credit, and the appellant's mistake was a technical one, involving the omission of IGST figures separately in Form GSTR-3B. The court set aside the impugned judgment and quashed the order confirming the demand, declaring that the appellant had not availed excess credit warranting proceedings under Section 73.4. Revenue neutrality and procedural justice in tax administration:The court highlighted a similar case where the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax found that the taxpayer's actions were consistent with the legal framework, emphasizing the revenue-neutral nature of the situation. The court appreciated the timely and effective justice rendered by revenue officials, underscoring the importance of expeditious disposal of cases involving procedural aspects of taxation. The court concluded that there was no loss of revenue, and the appellant's actions were in line with procedural law. The judgment also addressed concerns about the State's share of IGST, directing the GST Council to resolve the issue based on the court's declaration.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
