2026 (1) TMI 1272

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r 2018-2019 in order to claim input tax credit under correct heads. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, in the present case, the petitioner has wrongly claimed Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the financial year 2018-19 to the extent of Rs. 1,94,77,496/- under Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) and State Goods and Services Tax (SGST) instead of claiming it under the head Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST). She would submit that after adjusting CGST and SGST, whatever amount wrongly claimed would be excess amount, the same can be utilized in terms of Section 49 (5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 r/w Rule 88 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. She would submit that an er....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at the petitioner has claimed excess ITC under CGST and SGST every month (April 2018 to March 2019) and excess claim of CGST and SGST leads to excess adjustment of CGST and SGST towards tax due and cash payments towards CGST and SGST will be reduced, which leads to loss of revenue to the Government. He would further submit that on scrutiny of GSTR-9C, the Officer arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner made excess claim of ITC. Hence, it is evident that the petitioner wilfully not reversed the excess ITC of CGST and SGST. Hence, the impugned order. He therefore prayed for dismissal of this Writ Petition. 4. I have given due consideration to the submissions made on either sides. 5. In the present case, the issue is pertaining to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....le in law. 8. As already stated, though the petitioner made wrong entries while filing GSTR-3B for the financial year 2018-19, the said error was rectified by filing Form GSTR-9C. Once the error is rectified, the question of short payment or excess claim will not come into picture. If the petitioner failed to file GSTR-9C, the respondent is justified in issuing DRC 01A and DRC 01. However, such is not the case. Therefore, on this aspect also the impugned order is not sustainable. 9. The next contention of the respondent is that excess claim of CGST and SGST leads to excess adjustment of CGST and SGST towards tax due and cash payments towards CGST and SGST will be reduced and the same will result in loss of revenue to the Government. A....