Rodman Technologies PVT LTD vs. Commissioner Of Karnataka State GST, Bengaluru

Facts

The appellant, Rodman Technologies Pvt Ltd, filed an appeal against an order upholding the demand of excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) along with interest and penalty. The appellant claimed that the excess ITC of Rs. 5,62,067/- was claimed in their GSTR-3B for December 2020, but the underlying transactions and debit notes pertained to the financial year 2018-19. They contended that this period fell within the scope of Section 128A of the CGST/KGST Acts, which provides for a waiver of interest and penalty under certain conditions. The revenue contended that the ITC was claimed in December 2020, and therefore, the demand pertained to that period, falling outside the temporal scope of Section 128A. The appellant also failed to file Form SPL-01 for claiming the amnesty scheme.

Held

The Court held that eligibility under Section 128A of the CGST/KGST Acts is conditional upon satisfying all statutory requirements, including the demand pertaining to the period 1 July 2017 to 31 March 2020. The Court found that the excess ITC of Rs. 5,62,067/- was claimed in the GSTR-3B for December 2020 and was not ITC availed in FY 2018-19 and carried forward. Therefore, the demand pertained to December 2020 and fell outside the temporal scope of Section 128A. The Court also noted the appellant's failure to file Form SPL-01. Reliance on CBIC Circular No. 238/32/2024-GST and the case of Samita Panda was found insufficient to enlarge the statutory period, as the circular did not dispense with the statutory requirement of the demand pertaining to the specified period. The Court cautioned against attributing expressions to circulars or judgments that are not part of the relevant text. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the interest and penalty under Section 73(9) were upheld.

Key Issues

1. Whether the disputed excess ITC demand pertains to an eligible period under Section 128A of the CGST/KGST Acts, considering the appellant's contention that the underlying transactions relate to FY 2018-19, while the ITC was claimed in December 2020? - Appellant's argument: The demand should be treated as pertaining to FY 2018-19 because the underlying debit notes and transactions relate to that period, thus making it eligible for waiver under Section 128A. - Revenue's argument: The decisive factor is the period when the ITC was actually availed and became the subject of proceedings, which was December 2020, thus outside the scope of Section 128A. 2. Whether the appellant was entitled to claim waiver of interest and penalty under Section 128A in the absence of filing the prescribed Form SPL-01? - Appellant's argument: The amnesty scheme should not be denied on technical or procedural grounds, especially when tax liability was discharged promptly, and the denial was due to a procedural limitation preventing the filing of Form SPL-01. - Revenue's argument: The appellant did not attempt to file Form SPL-01, and the ITC was claimed for the first time in December 2020, making the claim ineligible.