Rinshad Maliyam Karim vs. State Tax Officer
Held
The High Court, without delving into the merits, directed the respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's rectification application (Ext.P9) in accordance with law. An opportunity of hearing must be afforded to the petitioner within three months.
Facts
A registered dealer faced significant GST liability, interest, and penalty due to an input tax credit mismatch between their GSTR-3B and their supplier's GSTR-I. The dealer filed a rectification application (Ext.P9) under Section 161 of the CGST/SGST Act.
Key Issues
The key issue was the non-granting of input tax credit due to GSTR-I and GSTR-3B mismatch, leading to a tax liability, and the petitioner's prayer for a direction to consider their rectification application.
Sections Cited
Section 161
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a registered dealer under the CGST/SGST Act.
According to the petitioner owing to mismatch between GSTR-I filed by the supplier and GSTR-3B filed by the petitioner certain input tax credit to which the petitioner was entitled has not been granted to him, as a result of which huge liability has been imposed on the petitioner together with interest and penalty. The petitioner has preferred Ext.P9 application under
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.