IGST Remitted Inadvertently Under Wrong Major Head Must Be Appropriated Towards CGST and SGST Liabilities

By | August 1, 2026

IGST Remitted Inadvertently Under Wrong Major Head Must Be Appropriated Towards CGST and SGST Liabilities

Issue

Whether a taxpayer who inadvertently paid its entire tax liability under the IGST head instead of splitting it between CGST and SGST can seek direct adjustment/appropriation of the IGST payment towards CGST and SGST liabilities instead of paying fresh CGST/SGST and filing a refund claim.

Facts

  • The petitioner filed its GSTR-3B return and inadvertently deposited its entire output tax liability under the IGST major head instead of allocating it under CGST and SGST heads.

  • The tax authority issued an assessment order demanding payment of CGST and SGST dues along with applicable interest/penalty.

  • In the subsequent rectification order, the Revenue acknowledged that the aggregate tax liability stood fully discharged under the IGST head.

  • However, the Revenue insisted that the petitioner must first deposit the fresh CGST and SGST amounts and thereafter file a claim for refund of the excess IGST paid.

  • The Revenue relied upon Section 19 of the IGST Act, Section 77 of the CGST Act, and Rule 89(1A) of the CGST Rules to enforce the “pay first, seek refund later” mechanism.

  • The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking direct appropriation/adjustment of the IGST funds already remitted towards its CGST and SGST liabilities.

Decision

  • Section 77 of the CGST Act and Section 19 of the IGST Act govern cases where a transaction treated as inter-State is later determined to be intra-State (or vice-versa), not cases of simple inadvertent accounting error under wrong major tax heads.

  • Since the petitioner’s total tax liability was fully discharged within the prescribed timeline, forcing the assessee to pay twice and then pursue a refund claim is uncalled for and legally unsustainable.

  • The tax authorities were directed to directly adjust and appropriate the IGST payment towards the outstanding CGST and SGST dues.

  • The conflicting portion of the rectification order demanding fresh payment of CGST and SGST was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Key Takeaways

  • Direct Adjustment Allowed for Head Discrepancy: Inadvertently paying tax under the wrong head (IGST instead of CGST/SGST) does not constitute non-payment of tax if the overall liability was remitted within time.

  • Inapplicability of Section 77 / Section 19: Provisions under Section 77 CGST Act and Section 19 IGST Act pertain to transaction re-classification disputes, not simple clerical errors in allocating funds across tax heads in GSTR-3B.

  • No Double Payment Mandate: Tax authorities cannot compel a taxpayer to make fresh cash deposits under correct heads and seek refunds when the Revenue already holds the required tax amount under an alternate head.

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
SYA Homes
v.
Assistant Commissioner (ST)*
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.
WP No. 23463 of 2026
WMP Nos. 25452 & 25453 of 2026
JULY  7, 2026
Suhrith Parthasarathy for the Petitioner. R. Sethu Prabakaran, GST Counsel (T) for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. In September 2021, the petitioner filed the GSTR-3B return by inadvertently reflecting the tax liability of Rs.5,84,832.70/- under the IGST head instead of apportioning it as Rs.2,92,416.35/- each towards CGST and SGST. This resulted in order dated 17.07.2023 directing the petitioner to pay the outstanding SGST and CGST dues. The petitioner applied for rectification. By order dated 17.02.2026, it was concluded that the petitioner should first discharge the liability of Rs.2,92,416.35/- each towards CGST and SGST and thereafter claim refund of erroneously paid IGST of Rs.5,84,832.70/-. The present writ petition was filed in the above facts and circumstances.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the findings recorded in the rectification order and contends that the agreed position is that the entire tax liability of Rs.5,84,832.70/- was discharged by the petitioner, albeit by making payment inadvertently under the wrong IGST head. Therefore, he contends that the GST authorities may be directed to transfer the amount from one head to the other.
3. Learned counsel relies upon the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Saji s. v. Commissioner, State GST Department Tax Tower, Thiruvananthapuram 19 GSTL 385 (Kerala)/W.P.(C) No.35868 of 2018, Pin 695 002 and anr. order dated 12.11.2018.
4. In response, relying on Section 19 of the IGST Act, r/w. Rule 89 (1A) of the CGST Rules, Mr.R.Sethu Prabakaran, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, contends that there is no infirmity in the rectification order and that the correct procedure is for the petitioner to pay the dues towards CGST and SGST and thereafter seek the refund.
5. Section 19 of the IGST Act is set out below:
Tax wrongly collected and paid to Central Government or State Government
(1) A registered person who has paid integrated tax on a supply considered by him to be an inter-State supply, but which is subsequently held to be an intra-State supply, shall be granted refund of the amount of integrated tax so paid in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.
(2) A registered person who has paid central tax and State tax or Union territory tax, as the case may be, on a transaction considered by him to be an intra-State supply, but which is subsequently held to be an inter-State supply, shall not be required to pay any interest on the amount of integrated tax payable.
6. As is evident from the above, the provision applies in a case where a registered person pays integrated tax on a supply considered by him to be an inter-State supply which is subsequently determined to be an intra-State supply. In that circumstance, he is entitled to refund of the integrated tax. Section 77 is the corresponding provision under the CGST Act. Rule 89 (1A) was framed for the implementation thereof. None of these provisions apply to a case where the tax was paid inadvertently under a wrong head.
7. The rectification order records categorically that the aggregate dues of Rs.5,84,832.70/- were discharged by making the remittance under the IGST head. Consequently, it was held that the petitioner is entitled to a refund of this amount.
8. Given that the petitioner has discharged the tax liability within the prescribed period, the petitioner cannot be penalised by being directed to first pay the taxes and thereafter seek the refund. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of on the following terms:
i. the petitioner shall file an application requesting that the sum of Rs.5,84,832.70/- which was inadvertently remitted under the IGST head, be appropriated towards the liability under CGST and SGST heads;
ii. If procedurally necessary for this purpose, an application for refund may be submitted;
iii. within 30 days from the date of receipt of an application from the petitioner, the respondents are directed to appropriate the amounts already available towards the CGST and SGST liability of the petitioner;
iv. To the extent the rectification order dated 17.02.2026 conflicts with the above directions, such order is set aside.
9. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.