Held - 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 als.....

Held: The specific contention raised by the petitioner is that, since the discrepancy highlighted in the impugned orders pertains to the availing of ITC under wrong heads, the same cannot be a subject-matter under Section 73 of the GST Act. In the instant case, there is no dispute regarding the eligibility of the input tax credit claimed by the noticee; but the allegation pertains to the noticee erroneously availin.....

Held: Division Bench of this Court had, in Rejimon Padickapparambil Alex v. Union of India and others [2024 KHC Online 7215] held, after referring to the clarification issued by CBIC by its Circular No.192/04/2023 dated 17.07.2023 that the input tax credit available in the electronic credit ledger should be considered as a pool of funds designated for different types of.....

Held: The credit available under IGST was utilised by the petitioner for SGST and CGST and the same was treated by the Proper Officer as being contrary to law, and huge tax and liability have been imposed. On an appreciation of the contentions urged and on a perusal of the impugned orders, this Court is of the view that the matter requires reconsideration in the light of the principles laid down .....

Held: In the decision in Rejimon Padickapparambil Alex v. Union of India and Others [2024 KHC Online 7215], a Division Bench of this Court had observed that the electronic credit ledger is in the nature of a wallet with different compartments of Integrated Goods and Services Tax, Central Goods and Services Tax and State Goods and Services Tax and there cannot be any wrong availin.....

Held: A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent pointing out that petitioner had wrongly availed the input tax credit under the heads CGST, SGST instead of IGST, and therefore, the impugned orders are not liable to be interfered by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In the decision in Rejimon Padickapparambil Alex v. Union of India and ot.....