Saji S., Proprietor, Adithya and Ambadi Traders, Ranjith R., Proprietor, Ranjith Roadlines Versus The Commissioner, State GST, The Assistant State Tax Officer
GST
2018 (11) TMI 954 – KERALA HIGH COURT – 2018 (19) G. S. T. L. 385 (Ker.) , [2019] 63 G S.T.R. 70 (Ker)
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 12-11-2018
WP(C). No. 35868 of 2018
GST
MR. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU J.
\nPETITIONERS: BY ADVS. SRI. S. SANTHOSH KUMAR SMT.ANJANA. S. SANTHOSH SMT. P. LISSY JOSE.
\nRESPONDENTS: DR THUSHARA JAMES, GP.
\nJUDGMENT
\nThe 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), for the reasons not germane here, detained the goods and issued the Ext.P3 notice, dated 30.09.2018.
\n2. Based on the demand in the Ext.P3 notice, the consignor paid the tax and penalty, as is evident from Ext.P4 payment receipt. But the remittance was made under the head 'SGST'.
\n3. The petit<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ll take more than a couple of months. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n any existing law and the balance amount refundable: = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Saji S., Proprietor, Adithya and Ambadi Traders, Ranjith R., Proprietor, Ranjith Roadlines Versus The Commissioner, State GST, The Assistant State Tax OfficerGST2018 (11) TMI 954 – KERALA HIGH COURT – 2018 (19) G. S. T. L. 385 (Ker.) , [2019] 63 G S.T.R. 70 (Ker)KERALA HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 12-11-2018WP(C). No. 35868 of 2018 GSTMR. … Continue reading “Saji S., Proprietor, Adithya and Ambadi Traders, Ranjith R., Proprietor, Ranjith Roadlines Versus The Commissioner, State GST, The Assistant State Tax Officer”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15068","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15068","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=15068"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15068\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15068"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15068"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15068"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the Government Pleader.
\n7. I reckon the facts are not in dispute. The petitioner, as a consignee and transporter, purchased goods from the consignor in Chennai. While those goods were in transit, they were detained. Further not in dispute is the fact that the consignor paid the tax and penalty. Either on the ASTO's advice or on its own, it remitted the amount under the head 'SGST', instead of 'IGST'. In this context, we may refer to Section 77 of the GST Act. And it reads:
\nSection 77: Tax wrongfully collected and paid to Central Government or State Government:
\n(1) A registered person who has paid the Central tax and State tax or, as the case may be, the central tax and the Union territory tax on a transaction considered by him to be an intra-State supply, but which is subsequently held to be an inter-State supply, shall be refunded the amount of taxes so paid in <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nPROVIDED that in cases where the amount of refund is completely adjusted against any outstanding demand under the Act or under any existing law, an order giving details of the adjustment shall be issued in Part A of FORM GST RFD-07.”
\n(italics supplied)
\n9. As seen, Section 77 provides for the refund of the tax paid mistakenly under one head instead of another. But Rule 4 speaks of adjustment. Where the amount of refund is completely adjusted against any outstanding demand under the Act, an order giving details of the adjustment is to be issued in Part A of FORM GST RFD-07. The petitioner's counsel lays stress on this process of adjustment and asserts that the amount remitted under one head can be adjusted under another head, for the demand can be any amount under the Act.
\n10. Under these circumstances, I find no difficulty for the respondent officials to allow the petitioner's request and get the amount transferred from the hea<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n