Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeGSTMere ITC Adjustment Under Wrong Head Doesn’t Justify Initiation Of Recovery Proceedings:...

Mere ITC Adjustment Under Wrong Head Doesn’t Justify Initiation Of Recovery Proceedings: Kerala High Court

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Kerala High Court has quashed an assessment order passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, holding that mere misclassification or adjustment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under a wrong head does not justify the initiation of recovery proceedings.

The bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A has observed that Section 73 proceedings can only be invoked when tax has “not been paid or has been short paid or erroneously refunded or where input tax has been wrongfully availed or utilized.”

The bench  held that when the issue involves mere adjustment or misclassification of ITC across different tax heads, there is no actual revenue loss, and hence Section 73 is not attracted.

The writ petition was filed by a registered taxpayer, Ashok Drugs challenging order issued under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act for the assessment year 2017–2018, alleging wrongful claim of input tax credit. The petitioner contended that the issue arose due to an inadvertent error while filing GSTR-3B for January 2018, wherein IGST input credit was utilized despite there being no inter-state sales during that period.

The petitioner argued that such a clerical or accounting mistake cannot attract proceedings under Section 73, as it does not amount to non-payment, short payment, or wrongful availment of ITC causing any loss to the revenue.

The court observed that the controversy was squarely covered by a Division Bench decision of the same court in Rejimon Padikapprambil Alex v. Union of India & Others [2024 KHC Online 7215].

In Rejimon Padikapprambil Alex, the Court had clarified that Section 73 proceedings can only be invoked when tax has “not been paid or has been short paid or erroneously refunded or where input tax has been wrongfully availed or utilized.” It further held that when the issue involves mere adjustment or misclassification of ITC across different tax heads, there is no actual revenue loss, and hence Section 73 is not attracted.

Applying the same reasoning, the court ruled that the petitioner’s case involved only a wrong head adjustment of ITC and not any fraudulent or wrongful availment of credit. 

The court quashed the order.

Case Details

Case Title: Ashok Drugs (Wholesale) Versus Deputy State Tax Officer

Case No.: WP(C) NO. 5496 OF 2024

Date: 15/10/2025

Counsel For Petitioner: P.Raghunathan

Counsel For Respondent: Arun Ajay Sankar

Read More: Pending Appeal in Income Tax Assessment Dispute: Kerala High Court Stays Recovery Proceedings

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

Multiple Life Sentences Can’t Run Consecutively; Remission in One Doesn’t Extend to Another: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has reiterated that multiple sentences of life imprisonment imposed for different...

CBIC Promotes 3 IRS Officers To Principal Chief Commissioner/Principal Director General Grade

The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has promoted three officers namely...

Arbitral Award Enforcement Drags On For 24 Years: Supreme Court Seeks Law Commission Study On Execution Reforms

The Supreme Court has requested the Law Commission of India to undertake a focused...

Supplier’s Retrospective GST Cancellation Alone Can’t Deny ITC; Fraud Must Be Established U/s 74: GSTAT

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Cuttack State Bench, has held that...

More like this

Multiple Life Sentences Can’t Run Consecutively; Remission in One Doesn’t Extend to Another: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has reiterated that multiple sentences of life imprisonment imposed for different...

CBIC Promotes 3 IRS Officers To Principal Chief Commissioner/Principal Director General Grade

The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has promoted three officers namely...

Arbitral Award Enforcement Drags On For 24 Years: Supreme Court Seeks Law Commission Study On Execution Reforms

The Supreme Court has requested the Law Commission of India to undertake a focused...