S.N.STORES vs STATE OF KERALA, Deputy CommissionerII Legal Cell O/o The Commissioner State GST Department
- Court
- GST Appellate Tribunal
GOODS AND SERVICES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BENCH
Division Bench : Court No I
APPEAL NO : APL/20/TVP/2026
[arising out of the OIA No. JC PTA 2024 GSTA.55 dated 9-1-2026 passed by the Joint
Commissioner (Appeals), Kollam]
S. N. STORES ….…………….Appellant
Vs
THE COMMISSIONER OF KERALA STATE GST
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ….…………Respondent
for Appellant for Respondent
Sreejith R, Advocate Mansur MI, AR
CORAM : Hon’ble Shri Subramanya Rayaprol, Vice-President
Hon’ble Shri Ramamoorthi Sriram, Member (Technical)
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
FINAL ORDER NO : 15/TVP/KERALAM/2026
Date of Hearing: 10-9-2026
Date of Order: 30-10-2026
Order Per: Subramanya Rayaprol, Vice President
1.0 Mr Sreejith R, Ld Advocate appeared for the appellants. Mr Mansur MI, Ld JC
appeared as AR for the respondents.
2.0 Ld Advocate for the appellants submits that during the month of Jan-2019 in the
GSTR1 Return filed by them, the CESS amount was wrongly entered as Rs.
655544.24 instead of the correct amount of Rs. 2,56,350/-, which can be verified and
ascertained by the supply value and GST liability. He submits that the respondent has
proceeded to demand the difference of the wrongly entered amount declared in
GSTR1 and the correct and actual amount of cess as declared and paid in the
GSTR3B Return. The difference is only due to the clerical mistake. The total supply
value in the return, GST liability and Input Tax claimed in GSTR3B and Input Tax
available in GSTR2A, is also accepted by the Respondent. The only higher Cess
Page 1 of 4
amount is rejected. He submits that the CESS amount has no independent existence
and hence the same may be allowed based on the figures under GST and total supply
value. He submits that during the month of Jan-2019, the tax liability as per GSTR1
is only RS: 37329.03 under CGST and SGST, which was accepted and allowed. The
CESS amount as per GSTR1 is wrongly typed as Rs. 655544.24 which is wrong and
it is only due to a clerical mistake. He submits that the correct amount of Rs. 256350/-
may kindly be considered and ignore the incorrectly typed amount in the GSTR1, and
prays that the clerical mistake may be kindly be condoned based on the value of
supply and actual calculation of Cess amount. He prays that the appeals be allowed.
3.0 The Ld AR for the Revenue (State) reiterates the findings of the first appellate
authority. In the OIA, the JC (Appeals) has held in para 12 that,
12) Another contention towards short payment of tax is that “in the month of January
2019 in the GSTR1 the CESS amount was wrongly entered as Rs.6,55,544.24/-. The
correct amount was Rs.2,56,350/-”.
13) The above contention is rejected for want of evidences.
14) The outstanding liability as per modification is as follows.
CESS due Interest Penalty Total
Rs.4,56,952/- Rs.4,10,343/- Rs.45,695/- Rs.9,12,990/-
4.0 Heard both sides.
5.0 We find that the only allegation against the appellant before us is that the
appellant has declared the outward liability of CESS of Rs. 6,55,544.24 in the GSTR1
Return of Jan-2019, but has paid only Rs. 2,56,350/- in the GSTR3B Return of Jan-
2019. Hence, the appellant was issued the SCN, which was adjudicated and an OIO
was passed, and on further appeals, the impugned OIA was issued, to recover the
differential amount of CESS of Rs. 4,56,952/- along with interest and penalty. We find
that the appellant has declared the taxable value of Rs. 3,00,926/- along with CGST
& SGST, in the GSTR1 Table 7 of Jan-2019, and also declared the same amount of
CGST, SGST, against the declared taxable value which is not disputed by the
Revenue at any point of time. The claim of the appellant that they have committed a
clerical error while entering the amount of CESS in the GSTR1 is believable as they
Page 2 of 4
have declared and paid an amount of Rs. 256350/- as CESS against the same
amount of CGST and SGST as declared in the GSTR1, which is also not disputed.
The allegation of the Revenue has not brought forward any evidence to show if the
value of the outward supply of cigarettes is suppressed or whether there is any
suppression of taxable value or any short payment of CGST and SGST. We find that
just making bald allegations of short payment of Cess is not acceptable even when
the appellant is explaining that it is due to a clerical mistake. The adjudicating
authority should have dealt with such issues on factual basis and could have
condoned the mistake, as there is no material to suggest any short payment of tax or
cess, or suppression of taxable value. The GSTR1 for Jan-2019 Table 7, filed by the
appellant is as below:
6.0 The GSTR3B of Jan-2019 Table 6.1 as filed by the appellant is as below:
Page 3 of 4
7.0 We find that the amount of CESS of Rs. 256350/- has been paid through ITC in
the GSTR3B of Jan-2019 by the appellant. We find that the entry made in the GSTR1
of Jan-2019 showing CESS of Rs. 655544.24 is erroneous as it is not corresponding
to any of the taxable value, CGST or SGST. The amount of CGST and SGST declared
in both the GSTR1 and GSTR3B does not vary, and has been paid correctly. There
is no allegation of suppression of quantity of outward supply of cigarettes, nor there
is any allegation of the short payment of CGST and SGST either. Therefore, in the
absence of any such allegations, or evidences to the contra, the allegation of short
payment of Cess, is not at all sustainable. We do not find any evidence leading to
short payment of Cess. Hence, the OIA is liable to be quashed and set aside.
8.0 Accordingly, we pass the following order:
ORDER
The impugned OIA dated 9-1-2026 is hereby quashed and set aside, and the appeals
are allowed with consequential relief.
Subramanya Rayaprol
Vice-President
Ramamoorthi Sriram
Member (Technical)
Date: 30-10-2026
Rayaprol
Subramanya
Viswanatha
Digitally signed by
Rayaprol Subramanya
Viswanatha
Date: 2026.10.30 16:23:52
+05'30'
Digitally signed by Ramamoorthi
Sriram
Date: 2026.10.30 17:14:14 +05'30'
Ramamoorthi Sriram
Page 4 of 4