##PAGE1##

Reserved On : 19/10/2026 Pronounced On : 28/10/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13116 of 2025 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI ===================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ✔

===================================================

R.J.TECHNOLOGIES Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

===================================================

Appearance:

MR.UCHIT N SHETH(7336) for the Petitioner(s) No.1 MR.UTKARSH R SHARMA(6157) for the Respondent(s) No.1,2,3,4 ===================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI CAV JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)

RULE. returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Utkarsh Sharma, waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondnets.

1. The present writ petition has been filed by a partnership firm engaged in the business of supplying electrical transformers, wires and allied products, seeking to quash and set aside the order dated 02.07.2025 and for a consequential direction to grant waiver of interest and penalty by allowing the application filed under Section 128A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, “the CGST Act”).

FACTS OF THE CASE :

2. The petitioner filed its returns under the CGST Act for the Financial Year (F.Y.) 2017-18. Upon subsequently noticing a mismatch in the Input Tax Credit (for short, “ITC”) reflected in Form GSTR-3B, prescribed under Rule 61 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (for short, “the CGST Rules”), and Form GSTR-2A, prescribed under Rule 60 of the CGST Rules, the petitioner filed Form GST DRC-03 under Rule 142(2) of the CGST Rules on 04.10.2019, and paid an amount of Rs.31,14,653/-, representing the entire ITC balance available as on the date of reversal.

2.1 It is the petitioner’s case that, while filing Form GST DRC-03 on 04.10.2019, it inadvertently mentioned F.Y. 2018-19 instead of F.Y. 2017-18, although the reversal of ITC pertained to the mismatch in credit relating to F.Y. 2017-18.

2.2 On 05.02.2020, the petitioner filed a reconciliation statement in Form GSTR-9C, prescribed under Rule 80(3) of the CGST Rules, recording therein that the unreconciled ITC had been paid through Form GST DRC-03.

2.3 On 05.10.2021, the petitioner made a further payment of Rs.11,39,200/- through Form GST DRC-03 in respect of another discrepancy viz. the mismatch between the amounts declared in Form GSTR-1 and Form GSTR-3B for F.Y. 2017-18. In the said form, the petitioner correctly mentioned the relevant financial year.

2.4 On 05.01.2022, the petitioner paid interest on delayed payment of tax under Section 50 of the CGST Act amounting to Rs.5,02,000/- for F.Y. 2017-2018.

2.5 Thereafter, the respondent issued an intimation in Form GST DRC-01A under Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules for F.Y. 2017-18, proposing a demand under Section 73 of the CGST Act. The petitioner submitted its reply to the said intimation on

08.12.2022.

2.6 Subsequently, on 05.01.2023, the respondent issued a show-

cause notice to the petitioner under Section 73 of the CGST Act.

2.7 The petitioner submitted its reply to the show-cause notice on 28.03.2023. Thereafter, on 30.11.2023, the adjudicating authority passed an Order-in-Original raising two demands for F.Y. 2017-18: (i) a demand on account of a shortfall in output tax arising from the difference between the amounts declared in Form GSTR-1 and Form GSTR-3B; and (ii) a demand on account of excess ITC arising from the difference between Form GSTR-2A and Form GSTR-3B. While determining the latter demand, the adjudicating authority declined to give credit for the payment of Rs.31,14,653/- made through Form GST DRC-03 dated 04.10.2019, on the ground that the financial year mentioned therein was F.Y. 2018-19 and not F.Y. 2017-18.

2.8 The petitioner c