BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY W.P.(MD)No.3049 of 2025 &

W.M.P(MD)Nos.2123 & 12450 of 2025 Periyasamy Karthikeyan ...Petitioner vs.

The State Tax Officer, Karur-4 Assessment Circle, Karur. ...Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records leading to the issuance of assessment order bearing reference number GSTIN: 33DIBPK9402G1ZJ/2018-2019, dated 09.12.2024 passed by the respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondent herein to allow the petitioner to rectify the GSTR-3B returns filed for the year 2018-2019 in order to claim input tax credit under correct heads.

For Petitioner : Mrs.S.P.Sri Harini For Respondent : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned assessment order bearing reference number GSTIN:33DIBPK9402G1ZJ/2018-2019, dated 09.12.2024, passed by the respondent and to direct the respondent to allow the petitioner to rectify GSTR-3B returns filed for the year 2018-2019 in order to claim input tax credit under correct heads.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, in the present case, the petitioner has wrongly claimed Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the financial year 2018-19 to the extent of Rs.1,94,77,496/- under Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) and State Goods and Services Tax (SGST) instead of claiming it under the head Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST). She would submit that after adjusting CGST and SGST, whatever amount wrongly claimed would be excess amount, the same can be utilized in terms of Section 49 (5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 r/w Rule 88 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. She would submit that an error occurred at the time of filing GSTR-3B and that while filing annual returns in GSTR-9, the petitioner has clearly stated about the wrongful availing ITC under CGST and SGST instead of IGST and short payment on IGST as well. While filing GSTR-9C - Part B, Certificate has been obtained from the Charted Accountant for wrongly availing ITC under CGST and SGST to the extent of Rs.1,94,77,496/- and the said error was also rectified by filing GSTR-9C. While so, the respondent has issued Form GST ASMT - 10 on 02.12.2021 and the petitioner has also filed reply to the same. Upon consideration of the petitioner's reply, the respondent dropped the proceedings and issued ASMT - 12 on 18.03.2022. Therefore, she would submit that, in terms of provisions of Section 61 (2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, once ASMT - 12 is issued, no further proceedings can be initiated. However, contrary to the same, DRC 01A and DRC 01 have been issued with regard to the same issue. Reply was also filed by the petitioner, however, without considering the same, the respondent has mechanically passed the impugned order. Hence, the Writ Petition.

3. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner's reply was to the effect that only due to the clerical error, ITC was claimed under CGST and SGST instead of IGST and that there is no revenue loss to the Government. According to him, the reply is not acceptable for the reason that the petitioner has claimed excess ITC under CGST and SGST every month (April 2018 to March 2019) and excess claim of CGST and SGST leads to excess adjustment of CGST and SGST towards tax due and cash payments towards CGST and SGST will be reduced, which leads to loss of revenue to the Government. He would further submit that on scrutiny of GSTR-9C, the Officer arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner made excess claim of ITC. Hence, it is evident that the petitioner wilfully not reversed the excess ITC of CGST and SGST. Hence, the impugned order. He therefore prayed for dismissal of this Writ Pe