Facts of the Case:

In this case, the appellant was an exporter of cashew kernels, exported goods on payment of IGST during November 2018, December 2018 and February 2019. Although the exports and IGST were correctly reported in GSTR-1, while filing GSTR-3B the appellant inadvertently reported the export turnover and corresponding IGST in Table 3.1(a) instead of Table 3.1(b) meant for zero-rated supplies. Consequently, the Customs EDI system did not process the corresponding refund.

To enable processing of the export refund, the appellant subsequently paid the same IGST again in the August 2019 GSTR-3B, correctly reporting it under the zero-rated supplies column, and obtained refund of the second payment through the Customs automated system. The original IGST payments of ₹9,41,390, ₹4,55,293 and ₹4,30,587, aggregating to ₹18,27,270, however, remained with the Government. The appellant therefore claimed refund of the original excess payment.

The refund claims were rejected and the first appellate authority dismissed the appeals on the ground that the appellant had already received the refund. The appellant contended that the refund already received pertained to the second payment made in August 2019, whereas the present claims related to the original payments.

Issue:

Whether refund of ₹18,27,270 excess IGST could be denied merely because of incorrect reporting of export turnover in GSTR-3B, when the same IGST had subsequently been paid again and refunded through the Customs system.

Held That:

The GSTAT, Thiruvananthapuram allowed the appeals and directed consequential refund. It found from the GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B records that the appellant had in fact paid IGST on the exports in the respective months and had subsequently paid the same amount again in August 2019, resulting in refund of the second payment through the Customs automated system. The original payments therefore represented excess payment of IGST.

The Tribunal held that the error in GSTR-3B was merely a clerical mistake of reporting the correct figures in the wrong column. The mistake was subsequently explained through reconciliation and did not alter the fact that IGST had actually been paid. Since the Revenue could not demonstrate that the original IGST payments were otherwise not genuine or that the amounts had not been paid twice, the excess amount could not legally be retained by the Government.

Relying, inter alia, on the principle embodied in Article 265 of the Constitution, the Tribunal observed that tax cannot be collected or retained without authority of law. It also referred to the Orissa High Court decision in Rajendra Narayan Mohanty and the Karnataka High Court decision in Merck Life Science Pvt. Ltd., supporting restitution/refund where tax has been paid in excess or under an error/mistake.

Accordingly, the Tribunal held that procedural/clerical errors in GSTR-3B cannot be used to deny refund of tax demonstrably paid in excess, particularly where the same tax has effectively been deposited twice. The Order-in-Appeal was quashed and the three appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

Case Name: M/s. Choice Cashew Industries Versus The Commissioner of CGST Thiruvananthapuram dated 17.09.2026

Citation No. 2026 Taxo.online 2934