M/S Vinayaka Agencies vs. The Deputy Commissioner
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: (i) Issue writ of certiorari or in the like nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order bearing No.DCCT/ AUDIT/ HPT/ GST-ADJN/ ORDER/ 2024- 25/ T, dated 10.02.2025, passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-C (F.Y.2020-21); and (ii) Issue writ of mandamus or in the like nature of mandamus or direction to the respondent no.1 to consider the Annexure-B dated 05.02.2025.”
Heard Shri H.R. Kambiyavar, learned counsel for petitioner; Shri T. Hanumareddy, learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2; Shri M.B. Kanavi, learned CGSC for respondent No.3. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17589
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that instead of claiming input tax under CGST or SGST, a wrong claim has been made under the wrong head by claiming input tax under the IGST. The issue is considered by the High Court of Kerala in the case of MARUTHENGAL MOIDEEN v. STATE TAX OFFICER1, wherein it is held as follows:
“4. In the decision in Rejimon Padickapparambil Alex v. Union of India and others 2024 KHC Online 7215 a Division Bench of this Court had observed that there can be no wrong availing of input tax credit when such credit, available in IGST, was availed under the heads CGST and SGST.
In this context, it needs to be mentioned that the electronic credit ledger has to be treated as a pool of funds, designated for different types of taxes such as IGST, CGST and SGST. The credit ledger represents a wallet with different compartments of funds. Since the petitioner had availed credit under the CGST and SGST instead of IGST and utilised the same for payment of GST, I am of the view that the benefit of the decision in Rejimon Padickapparambil's case (supra) is applicable to the petitioner. The impugned orders having not considered the aforesaid legal proposition, are required to be set aside and a reconsideration be directed.
Accordingly, I set aside Ext.P6 and Ext.P10 orders and direct the first respondent to reconsider Ext.P6, afresh bearing in mind the dictum laid down in 1 W.P. (C) No. 20837 of 2024, DD: 13.01.2025 (Kerala High Court) HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17589 Rejimon Padickapparambil s case (supra) as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed as above.”
I am in respectful agreement with the afore-quoted judgment of the High Court of Kerala. In that light, the petition deserves to succeed, with the prayer to be granted.
For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The petition stands disposed. (ii) The order dated 10.02.2025, passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-C stands quashed. (iii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 to consider the petitioner’s reply to the show cause notice vide Annexure-B within an outer limit of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE VNP / CT: ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 165
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.