No interest on reversal of wrongful availment of credit

No interest on reversal of wrongful availment of credit The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case o f M/s F1 Components Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Tax Of…

No interest on reversal of wrongful availment of credit
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s F1 Components Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Tax Officer, Chennai [W.P. No.6631 of 2021 And WMP No.7188 of 2021, dated July 09, 2021] partly set aside the order passed by the Revenue Department to the extent that interest on remittances by way of adjustment of electronic credit register is not leviable, in a matter challenging levy of interest under Section 50 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”) on reversal of wrongly availed Input Tax Credit (“ITC”) and upheld the levy of interest on the belated cash remittance. Held that, the interest on cash remittances is compulsory and mandatory. Further held that, in a case where the claim of ITC by an assessee is erroneous, then the question of Section 42 of the CGST Act does not arise at all, since it is not the case of mismatch, one of wrongful claim of ITC. Facts: This Petition has been filed by M/s F1 Components Pvt. Ltd. (“the Petitioner”), being aggrieved by the order passed by the Revenue Department (“the Respondent”), dated January 27, 2021 (“the Impugned Order”), levying interest under Section 50 of the CGST Act relating to interest on cash remittances as well as remittances by way of adjustment of electronic credit register.. The Petitioner has relied on the provisions of Section 42 of the CGST Act which provides for a notice to be issued by the Assessing Authority (“A.A.”) in the case of mismatch of particulars at the end of the Petitioner, vis-à-vis particulars furnished in the returns of the selling/purchasing dealer. Issue:- Whether the Petitioner is liable to pay interest on the belated cash remittance?
- Referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Maansarovar Motors Private Limited [WP.No.4468 of 2020, dated September 29,2020] wherein, the Court set aside the orders for levying interest on ITC as applied on delayed payment in line with GST Council’s recommendation of levying interest on net cash liability only with effect from July 1, 2017 and it was held that the proviso to Section 50 of the CGST Act is retrospective in operation notwithstanding the notification bringing it into effect from September 1, 2020.
- Analysed the provisions of Section 42 of the CGST Act, and noted that, the same is not applicable as the Petitioner has accepted the error in claim on receipt of intimation of wrongful claim of ITC by the Respondent and has accordingly reversed ITC through voluntary payment of tax in Form GST DRC-03. Whereas, such provisions can only be invoked, in case the mismatch is on account of the error in the database of the Respondent or a mistake that has been occasioned at the end of the Respondent. But in the present case, the Petitioner’s claim for ITC is erroneous, and it is not the case of mismatch.
- Modified and set aside the Impugned Order to the extent that interest on remittances by way of adjustment of electronic credit register is not leviable.
- Held that, the levy of interest on belated cash remittance is compensatory and mandatory.
About Author

A2ZBimal Jain
Chartered Accountant
CA Bimal Jain is a Member of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India since May 1994 and Member of Institute of Company Secretaries of India since December 2006 along with a Bachelors degree in Law. Also, he is a Qualified SAP - FI/CO Consultant and has more than 21 years of experience in Indirect Taxation and specializes in all aspects of Service Tax, Value Added Tax (VAT)/ Central Sales Tax (CST), Central Excise, Customs, Foreign Trade Policy (FTP), Special Economic Zone (SEZ), Export Oriented Unit (EOU), Export-Import Laws and well acquainted with the concept and impact of way forward Goods and Services tax (GST).
A2Z Taxcorp LLP
Delhi, Delhi, India
468My Recent Articles
- Actions taken by the department during enquiry need not necessarily be termed as harassment
- Who are liable to generate e-invoice w.e.f October 1, 2022
- Personal penalty cannot be imposed on the Chairman of the Company for failure in ensuring proper accounting of the goods
- Stayed the order of cancellation of GST Registration of the assessee for continuing the trading activities
- Can CA be arrested- Section 69 vs Section 132 of the CGST Act
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Tags
Recent Posts

All Posts








