2025 (4) TMI 870 - HC - GST

Erroneous availment of CENVAT Credit - mismatch between GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A - Petitioner contends that the inadvertent error while availing ITC under a wrong heading was a human error and since there was no facility for revising the forms petitioner utilized the IGST credit available - HELD THAT - Division Bench of this Court had in Rejimon Padickapparambil Alex v. Union of India and others 2024 (12) TMI 399 - KERALA HIGH COURT held after referring to the clarification issued by CBIC by its Circular No.192/04/2023 dated 17.07.2023 that the input tax credit available in the electronic credit ledger should be considered as a pool of funds designated for different types of taxes such as IGST CGST and SGST. It was further observed that these accounts would represent a wallet with compartments for IGST CGST and SGST funds and the entire wallet has to be taken into consideration not just individual compartments. It was also observed that for utilizing the IGST liability the clarification emphasizes that the eligibility of funds for this payment is based on the total balance in the entire wallet and not just one of the compartments. The Division Bench went on to hold that Section 73 of the Act is attracted only when there is tax not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or where an input tax has been wrongly availed or utilized for any reason. As far as the grievance and apprehension expressed by the State in that case was concerned that it might be deprived of its legitimate share of the IGST made by supplies outside the Division Bench made it clear that the State on producing a copy of the judgment with a representation before the GST Council appropriate directions to solve the issue by taking note of the declaration in the judgment shall be carried out. The 3rd respondent is directed to pass fresh orders within two months in the light of the decision in Regimon Padickapparambil Alex - petition allowed.

2024 (12) TMI 399 - HC

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:

Whether the petitioner erroneously availed input tax credit (ITC) under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) heading instead of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) and State Goods and Services Tax (SGST) headings, and if such an error warrants the imposition of tax, penalty, and interest under the GST laws.
Whether the clarifications provided by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) Circular No.192/04/2023 are applicable to the petitioner's case.
Whether the previous decision in Rejimon Padickapparambil Alex v. Union of India and others is applicable, and how it affects the present case.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Erroneous Availment of ITC under IGST

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The petitioner claimed ITC under the IGST heading instead of CGST and SGST, resulting in a mismatch between GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A. The relevant provisions under the GST laws, particularly Section 73 of the CGST Act, were considered, which pertain to tax not paid, short paid, or erroneously refunded, or where input tax has been wrongly availed or utilized.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court considered the petitioner's argument that the error was inadvertent and due to the lack of a facility for revising the forms. It was noted that the error did not lead to any revenue loss to the department. The Court referred to the CBIC Circular No.192/04/2023, which allows the utilization of ITC from any of the heads (IGST, CGST, SGST) for payment of IGST liability.
Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner had no inward inter-state supply for the month in question, making IGST credit unavailable. The petitioner utilized CGST and SGST credits to set off the IGST output tax liability, which was found to be a procedural error rather than a substantive one.
Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the legal principles from the CBIC Circular and the precedent case to determine that the petitioner's actions did not warrant proceedings under Section 73 of the CGST Act.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondent argued that the wrong availment affected the apportionment of tax between the Centre and the State. However, the Court found that the statutory framework and the binding decision of the Court in the precedent case took precedence over these concerns.
Conclusions: The Court concluded that the petitioner's error did not justify the imposition of tax, penalty, and interest as per the challenged orders.

2. Applicability of CBIC Circular No.192/04/2023

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The CBIC Circular clarifies that ITC available in the electronic credit ledger can be used for payment of IGST liability, treating the ledger as a unified resource.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court interpreted the Circular as supporting the petitioner's position, as it considers the electronic credit ledger as a pool of funds for different types of taxes, which can be utilized interchangeably for IGST payments.
Key Evidence and Findings: The Circular was found to be directly applicable to the petitioner's case, as it addressed similar issues of ITC utilization.
Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the Circular to conclude that the petitioner's use of ITC was permissible under the GST framework.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondent's concerns about apportionment were addressed, but the Court emphasized the Circular's guidance and the precedent case's binding nature.
Conclusions: The Court held that the Circular's provisions supported the petitioner's actions, negating the need for penalties or interest.

3. Precedent Case: Rejimon Padickapparambil Alex v. Union of India and others

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The precedent case dealt with similar issues of ITC utilization and the interpretation of the electronic credit ledger as a unified resource.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court found that the principles established in the precedent case were applicable to the present case, reinforcing the interpretation of the electronic credit ledger as a pool of funds.
Key Evidence and Findings: The precedent case provided a legal basis for considering the electronic credit ledger as a unified resource, which was instrumental in the Court's decision.
Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the precedent case's principles to the current facts, supporting the petitioner's position.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondent's argument that the Centre would be at a loss was considered but ultimately dismissed in light of the binding precedent.
Conclusions: The Court concluded that the precedent case's principles were decisive in setting aside the challenged orders.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court held that the petitioner's error in availing ITC under the wrong heading did not justify the imposition of tax, penalty, or interest, as there was no revenue loss.
The CBIC Circular No.192/04/2023 was deemed applicable, supporting the interpretation of the electronic credit ledger as a unified resource.
The precedent case, Rejimon Padickapparambil Alex v. Union of India and others, was applied, reinforcing the Court's decision to set aside the challenged orders.
The Court directed the 3rd respondent to pass fresh orders in light of the precedent case, allowing for the possibility of the Centre addressing any revenue loss with the GST Council.

← Previous Next →