ITC Availed Under CGST/SGST Instead of IGST: Orders Set Aside, Matter Remanded

Summary in Key Points:

Issue: Was the denial of Input Tax Credit (ITC) justified because it was availed under CGST and SGST instead of IGST?
Facts: The assessee faced an order under Section 73, determining excess ITC and demanding payment with interest and penalty. The assessee’s rectification application was dismissed. The respondent argued that the assessee wrongly availed ITC under CGST and SGST instead of IGST.
Decision: Citing Rejimon Padickapparambil Alex v. Union of India, the court held that availing ITC under CGST and SGST instead of IGST does not constitute wrong availment. The electronic credit ledger is a pool of funds for different taxes, and the benefit of the Rejimon Padickapparambil Alex decision was extended to the assessee. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration.

Important Note: This decision clarifies that availing ITC under CGST and SGST instead of IGST is not considered wrong availment, as long as the ITC was eligible and available in the electronic credit ledger. This ruling aligns with the principle that the electronic credit ledger is a fungible pool of funds for different types of GST. By setting aside the orders and remanding the matter, the court ensures that the assessee’s ITC claim is reassessed in light of the Rejimon Padickapparambil Alex decision, preventing an unjust denial of credit. This decision provides relief to taxpayers who may have inadvertently availed ITC under the wrong heads and clarifies the treatment of ITC in such situations.

HIGH COURT OF KERALA

Maruthengal Moideen

State Tax Officer

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.

WP(C) NO. 20837 OF 2024

JANUARY 13, 2025

V. Devananda Narasimham and Sheeja D.K., Advs. for the Petitioner. Smt. Jasmin M.M., GP for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

1. Petitioner is a registered tax payer under the GST Acts 2017. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 73 of the CGST Act alleging that he had wrongly availed input tax credit, in contravention of Section 16(2)(c) of the GST Act. Pursuant to a show cause notice, Ext.P6 order was issued under Section 73 determining an excess input tax credit availed by the petitioner to the tune of Rs.2,00,219/- each, under the heads of CGST and SGST and he was directed to pay the said amount along with applicable interest and penalty within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. Subsequently, a rectification petition was filed by the petitioner, which was also dismissed by Ext.P10. Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P6 and Ext.P10 orders.

2. 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.

3. I have heard Smt.Devananda Narasimham V., the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Smt.Jasmin M.M., the learned Government Pleader.

4. 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 there can be no wrong availing of input tax credit when such credit, available in IGST, was availed under the heads CGST and SGST.

5. In this context, it needs to be mentioned that the electronic credit ledger has to be treated as a pool of funds, designated for different types of taxes such as IGST, CGST and SGST. The credit ledger represents a wallet with different compartments of funds. Since the petitioner had availed credit under the CGST and SGST instead of IGST and utilised the same for payment of GST, I am of the view that the benefit of the decision in Rejimon Padickapparambil’s case (supra) is applicable to the petitioner. The impugned orders having not considered the aforesaid legal proposition, are required to be set aside and a reconsideration be directed.

6. Accordingly, I set aside Ext.P6 and Ext.P10 orders and direct the first respondent to reconsider Ext.P6, afresh bearing in mind the dictum laid down in Rejimon Padickapparambil s case (supra) as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

7. The writ petition is allowed as above.