2024 (3) TMI 1270 - HC - GST

Refund / Reversal of excess input tax credit availed - bonafide mistake - petitioner submits that the petitioner instead of claiming the CGST/SGST claimed IGST and it was not a bonafide mistake committed by the petitioner - HELD THAT - Section 54 read with Section 49 prescribes for refund of excess tax etc. paid by the registered dealer by moving an application within the period of two years from the last date of filing the returns for the relevant year. In the present case the financial year is of 2017- 18 for which the due date for filing the application for correcting the mistake or claiming the refund of the IGST was 23.04.2019 - Admittedly the petitioner did not move any application within the time prescribed and even the extended time. This Court in exercise of its limited jurisdiction cannot amend the statute prescribes different time limit for moving such an application and therefore there are no substance in this writ petition. So far as the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court in M/s. Orient Traders v. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Another 2023 (1) TMI 838 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is concerned in the said Judgment the statutory provisions have not been taken - The said Judgment does not have any binding precedent. The present writ petition is hereby dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in this case include the petitioner's claim of excess input tax credit under the CGST Act and Kerala SGST Act for the financial year 2017-18, the rejection of the petitioner's contention by the Assessing Authority, and the question of whether a bonafide mistake should lead to disallowance of input tax credit.

Summary:
In this case, the petitioner, a registered dealer under the CGST Act and Kerala SGST Act, filed returns for the year 2017-18 but received a show cause notice for availing excess input tax credit. The Assessing Authority found that the petitioner had claimed excess credit as SGST and CGST, directing them to pay the tax, interest, and penalty. The petitioner argued that the mistake of claiming IGST instead of CGST/SGST was not intentional, citing a Karnataka High Court judgment that supported not penalizing such bonafide errors.

Upon considering the arguments, the Court noted that Section 54 along with Section 49 allows for refund of excess tax paid by a dealer within a specified timeframe. As the petitioner did not apply for correction or refund within the prescribed period for the financial year 2017-18, the Court stated its inability to alter the statutory time limits. The Court also highlighted that the Karnataka High Court judgment relied upon by the petitioner did not consider the relevant statutory provisions and lacked binding precedent, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.