GST ITC Claimed under CGST/SGST Instead of IGST during GSTR 3B Filing: Calcutta HC stays Order Directing to Reverse Excess ITC [Read Order]

The Calcutta High Court stayed the appellate authority’s order directing reversal of Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) claimed under the wrong tax heads, observing that the error caused no loss to the government and was revenue neutral.

The petitioner, Agro Trade Centre and Anr, in its writ, challenged the order which held that ITC claimed under the CGST and SGST heads against an invoice from TAFE Motors and Tractors Ltd. was ineligible, as it should have been claimed under the IGST head.

 Law Simplified with Tables, Charts & Illustrations – Easy to Understand - Click here 

The petitioner explained that during the GSTR-3B filing, ITC was inadvertently availed under the CGST and SGST heads instead of the appropriate IGST head. As a result, the appellate authority had ordered reversal/payment of the excess ITC, treating the claim as invalid. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner approached the High Court.

During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Vinay Shraff, referred to a recent Division Bench ruling in Wilhelmsen Port Services India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. (MAT 319 of 2025), where a similar error in ITC categorization was treated as a technical mistake. In that case, the Court had granted an unconditional stay on the impugned order, citing the absence of any revenue loss and treating the situation as revenue neutral.

Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya observed that the present case also appears to involve no actual loss to the exchequer. It was, therefore, prima facie satisfied that the circumstances warranted interim relief.

It was observed that “This Court is of the prima facie view that there is no loss of revenue to the Government and it is revenue neutral. In view thereof the order impugned dated 22.10.2024 passed in Appeal Case No. GST/APP/224/2024-2025 shall remain stayed till the disposal of the writ petition.”

Accordingly, the Court ordered that the impugned appellate order dated 22.10.2024 in Appeal shall remain stayed until final disposal of the writ petition. The Court did not impose any condition such as a pre-deposit.

The petitioner was represented by Advocates Mr. Vinay Shraff, Mr. Abhilash Mittal, Ms. Priya Sarah Paul, and Mr. Dev Kumar Agarwal; the State was represented by Ms. Rima Sarkar.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates