ITC claimed as IGST instead of CGST and SGST: High Court allows rectification of GSTR-3B

The Kerala High Court in the matter of CHUKKATH KRISHNAN PRAVEEN Vs. STATE OF KERALA allowed recitification of GSTR-3B because ITC claimed as IGST instead of CGST and SGST.

The Official Judgment Stated:

Heard Ms N S Shamila learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Ms Jasmin M M learned Government Pleader for the parties.

The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, a registered dealer under the provisions of the KVAT Act and now under the provisions of the CGST/SGST Act, for the following prayers:

“i) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing respondents to permit the petitioner to rectify the mistake in Form GSTR-3B by accounting input tax credit as IGST instead of SGST and CGST credit.

ii) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to refund IGST Input tax credit and thereafter, adjust the same towards SGST and CGST liability;

iii) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the respondents to reconsider Exhibit.P3 or P6 by considering evidences produced by petitioner, especially in the fact that, IGST credit and liability towards CGST and SGST are same;

iv) To issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing Exhibts.P3 and P6 as unjust and illegal;

v) And to pass such other appropriate orders or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

vi) To dispense with the production of translation of vernacular documents”

After some arguments, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner committed some errors in submitting the returns in GSTR-3B, on the basis of which the assessment order in Ext.P3 has been passed. The petitioner has made a representation on 21.10.2023 in Ext.P4 for rectifying the mistakes/error which resulted in passing the impugned assessment order. She further submits that a direction may be given to the 3rd respondent to treat the representation as a rectification application and necessary orders be passed.

Ms Jasmin M M, learned Government Pleader does not have much objection to the said prayer of the petitioner.

In view thereof, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P4 and Ext.P5 as a rectification application filed by the petitioner/assessee and pass necessary orders expeditiously in accordance with the law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The order should be passed on Exts.P4 and P5, preferably within a period of two months.

For Official Judgment Download the Given Below: