Back
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
Lotus Pharmaceuticals – Appellant
Versus
Assistant State Tax Officer – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Petitioner – a partnership firm, challenges an order of determination under Section 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, 'the CGST/ SGST Act'). Petitioner also challenges an order dismissing an application for rectification.
2. For the financial year 2018-19, petitioner was alleged to have availed excess input tax credit. A show cause notice was issued on 28.12.2023, calling upon the petitioner to explain why the excess ITC, wrongly availed to the tune of Rs. 3,51,00,063/-, should not be recovered under section 73(1) of the CGST Act. A reply was filed, stating that, immediately upon noticing the wrong availing of ITC, petitioner had reversed it along with interest and an intimation as DRC-03 had also been filed on 30-01-2020. According to the petitioner, as soon as the error came to its knowledge, it had rectified it. However, by an order dated20.04.2024, the proper officer rejected the objections and imposed a total liability of Rs.6,88,64,182/- inclusive of tax, interest and penalty.
3. In the aforesaid order, it was observed that, DRC-03 alleged to have been filed by the petitioner, cannot be accepte
Taxpayers should not be penalized for genuine errors, and proper officers must consider all relevant records when addressing rectification applications.
[The judgment establishes that while Input Tax Credit (ITC) should not be denied solely based on procedural errors, strict compliance with the statutory provisions of the CGST Act is essential for av....
Rectification of conflicting orders under Section 161 of the GST Act can be initiated by the authority on discovering an apparent error, even without a formal application, provided the error is clear....
The court ruled that system delays in transitioning Input Tax Credit should not prevent a taxpayer from obtaining a refund, emphasizing the need for operational efficiency in tax administration.
Court ruled that bona fide mistakes in GST returns, especially during early implementation, warrant rectification to prevent undue revenue loss.
The court ruled that inadvertent misclassification of IGST as CGST and SGST does not constitute excess credit utilization, especially when no revenue loss occurs.
Bonafide errors in GST returns should not obstruct rectification where no revenue loss occurs, promoting accuracy and fairness under GST provisions.
Clarifications/circulars issued by the Central Government and of the State Government are concerned they represent merely their understanding of the statutory provisions. They are not binding upon th....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
