Kerala HC Permits GSTR-3B Rectification as ITC Claimed as IGST Instead of SGST and CGST

The Kerala High Court in the case of Chukkath Krishnan Praveen Vs. The state of Kerala permitted the rectification of GSTR-3B because GST ITC claimed as IGST rather than CGST and SGST.

As Per the Official Judgment

Ms N S Shamila learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Ms Jasmin M M learned Government Pleader for the parties.

The petitioner, a registered dealer under the KVAT Act and now under the CGST/SGST Act, has filed a present writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, seeking the following reliefs:

• A directive, such as a Writ of Mandamus or any suitable writ, instructs the respondents to allow the petitioner to correct the error in Form GSTR-3B by accounting for input tax credit as IGST rather than SGST and CGST credit.
• A Writ of Mandamus or any suitable writ, instructing the respondents to permit the petitioner to claim a refund of IGST Input tax credit and subsequently adjust it towards SGST and CGST liability.
• A Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ, instructing the respondents to reconsider Exhibit.P3 or P6, taking into account the evidence provided by the petitioner, specifically highlighting that the IGST credit and liability towards CGST and SGST are identical.
• To seek a Writ of Certiorari or any suitable writ, order, or directive to annul Exhibits P3 and P6, deemed unjust and unlawful;
• To request further suitable orders or directives as deemed appropriate and just by this Hon’ble Court, considering the context and details of the case.
• To waive the necessity of providing translations for vernacular documents.
• Following a discussion, the petitioner’s learned Counsel acknowledges errors made by the petitioner in filing returns under GSTR-3B, leading to the issuance of assessment order Ext.P3. On October 21, 2023, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4, seeking rectification of these mistakes/errors prompting the impugned assessment order. The Counsel further requests that the 3rd respondent be directed to consider the representation as a rectification application and take appropriate action.

Ms Jasmin M M learned Government Pleader does not have considerable objection to the said prayer of the petitioner.

Read Also: Kerala HC: Not Legal to Charge GST Interest for Failing to File GSTR-3B After GSTN Cancellation

Therefore, this current writ petition is resolved, directing the 3rd respondent to treat Ext.P4 and Ext.P5 as a rectification application submitted by the petitioner/assessee. Prompt and lawful action should be taken after providing the petitioner with a fair hearing. The order regarding Exts.P4 and P5 should ideally be issued within a timeframe of 2 months.