Case Law: Adjustment of Tax paid

SAJI S. vs. COMMISSIONER, STATE GST DEPARTMENT TAX TOWER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

W.P. (C) No. 35868 of 2018 ,Nov 12, 2018  Kerala High Court

Legislation Referred to

Sections 54(5) & 77 of GST Act, Rule 92 (1) of GST Rules, 2017

1. The petitioner, a registered dealer, purchased certain goods from Chennai. He had them transported to Kerala. When the goods were in transit, the Assistant State Tax Officer (ASTO), detained the goods and issued the notice, dated 30.09.2018.

2. However the petitioner paid the tax and penalty as CGST and IGST instead of IGST.

3. The petitioner's counsel has drawn  attention to Section 77 of the GST Act and also Rule 92(1) of the GST  Rules, 2017, especially the proviso appended to the Rule. To hammer home his contentions that even if the remittance were to treated as a mistake on the consignor's part, the statute empowers the authorities to transfer the deposit from one head to another: from SGST/ CGST to IGST.

4. The Government Pleader, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner could as well pay the amount under 'IGST' and then claim a refund from the head 'SGST/ CGST. According to her, if the authorities have to go for an adjustment, it will take more than a couple of months.

Conclusion:

5. Under these circumstances,  there is no difficulty for the respondent officials to allow the petitioner's request and get the amount transferred from the head 'SGST/CGST' to 'IGST'. It may, as the Government Pleader has contended, take some time, but it is inequitable for the authorities to let the petitioner suffer on that count.

6. So ASTO will release the goods forthwith along with the vehicle and, then, ensure that the tax and penalty already stood remitted under the 'SGST' / CGST is transferred to the head 'IGST'.