Disposed¶18

Sanjay Kumar Lohia v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Jalpaiguri Charge and Ors.

Calcutta HC2 Jul 2025WPA/1228/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Refund of IGST erroneously deposited in place of CGST and WBGST for tax period April 2018 - March 2019; West Bengal Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - Section 73 proceedings dropped, Section 107 appellate rejection; challan dated March 02, 2024 recorded tax period as 2019-20 instead of 2018-19; double payment; no dues up to July 2024; State's contention of rectification under Section 37/39; Assistant Commissioner, Cooch Behar, Commercial Taxes; writ petition disposed with direction to refund Rs. 12,01,460/- within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No. 1 directed to refund Rs. 12,01,460/- deposited by the petitioner as IGST within four weeks from the date of communication of the order; writ petition disposed of with no order as to costs. ¶18

Sanjay Kumar Lohia Vs Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Jalpaiguri Charge and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to refund of the IGST of Rs.12,01,460/- deposited for the tax period April 2018 to March 2019, despite the challan recording the tax period as 2019-20 instead of 2018-19. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

Since the authority accepted the petitioner's payment for the period 2018-19 and dropped the Section 73 proceedings, and the said amount was wrongly deposited by the petitioner as IGST for the same period, the wrong recording in the challan of the tax period as 2019-20 should not stand in the way of refund of the excess amount doubly paid by the petitioner.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

There being admittedly no dues from the petitioner up to July, 2024, the petitioner cannot be deprived of refund of the excess amount deposited by him for the year 2018-19.

¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (WPA No. 1228 of 2025), High Court at Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri (Suvra Ghosh, J., 02.07.2025): The petitioner paid IGST of Rs.12,01,460/- for the tax period April 2018 to March 2019 instead of CGST and WBGST; upon his redepositing the amount as CGST and WBGST, proceedings under Section 73 of the West Bengal Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 were dropped. His claim for refund of the IGST deposit was rejected by the adjudicating authority solely because the challan dated March 02, 2024 recorded the tax period as 2019-20 instead of 2018-19, and the appellate authority under Section 107 affirmed the rejection on January 20, 2025. Holding that the authority's acceptance of the payment for 2018-19, the wrongful deposit as IGST, and the admitted absence of any dues up to July 2024 meant the challan error should not stand in the way of refund of the excess amount doubly paid, the Court directed respondent No. 1 to refund Rs. 12,01,460/- within four weeks and disposed of the writ petition, with no order as to costs.

¶1

02.07.2025 rc Item No.11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

¶3

WPA No. 1228 of 2025 Sanjay Kumar Lohia Versus

¶4

The Assistant Commissioner, Cooch Behar, Commercial Taxes & State, GST & Ors.

¶5

Mr. Dhiraj Lakhotia Mr. Radhika Agarwal Mr. Meghana Joshi …for the petitioner Mr. Pretom Das Ms. Rima Sarkar …for the State

¶6

Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

¶8

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the West Bengal Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2017”) on January 20, 2025 turning down his prayer for refund of the IGST tax deposited by him, in confirmation of the order of the adjudicating authority.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the tax period April, 2018 to March 2019 the petitioner paid IGST to the tune of Rs.12,01,460/- instead of CGST and WBGST. Proceedings under Section 73 of the Act of 2017 was initiated against him. The petitioner deposited

¶10

¶11

the said amount as CGST and WBGST for the said period following which the proceedings was dropped. The petitioner sought refund of the amount deposited as IGST since the said amount was already paid by the petitioner as CGST and WBGST. The adjudicating authority turned down the prayer of the petitioner solely on the ground that in the challan the period of tax has been recorded as 2019-20 instead of 2018-19. The appellate authority has also affirmed the said observation and rejected the appeal.

¶12

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner ought to have filed a rectification application under Section 37/39 of the Act seeking rectification of the wrong entry in the challan.

¶13

I have considered the material on record. The authority, in accepting the payment of the petitioner as CGST and WBGST and dropping the proceedings under Section 73 of the Act, as in fact accepted payment made by the petitioner for the period 2018-19. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner paid the said amount under IGST for the same period, i.e. 2018-19. The document which stands in the way is the challan dated March 02, 2024 which refers to the tax period as 2019-20.

¶14

In my considered view, since the authority has accepted payment of tax by the petitioner for the period 2018-19 as IGST and WBGST and also the fact that the said amount was wrongly deposited by the petitioner as

¶15

¶16

IGST, the wrong recording in the challan of the tax period as 2019-20 should not stand in the way of refund of the excess amount doubly paid by the petitioner under the said head. There being admittedly no dues from the petitioner upto July, 2024, the petitioner cannot be deprived of refund of the excess amount deposited by himfor the year 2018-19.

¶17

In view of the above, the 1^st respondent is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 12,01,460/- deposited by the petitioner as IGST within four weeks from the date of communication of the order.

¶18

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶19

Since no affidavit has been called for, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents.

¶20

There will be no order as to costs.

¶21

Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.

¶22

(Suvra Ghosh,J)

Sanjay Kumar Lohia v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Jalpaiguri Charge and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Lohia v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Jalpaiguri Charge and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sabita Moitra Vs the State of West Bengal and Orts.

Anand Sureka Vs Sweta Choudhary

Kalyan Kumar Ghosh Vs Shila Bharati

Subhash Chandra Barmn@Subhash Barman Vs the State of West Bengal

Rajen Md. @ Gomiruddin Md. Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Ranjan Haq@Haque and Anr. Vs the State of West Bengal