GST Input Tax Credit Denied on Differential Customs Duty Payments
Businesses cannot claim Input Tax Credit on differential IGST paid as a penalty for tax evasion under Section 74 of the GST Act.
- Ruling
- Advance Ruling No.116/AAR/2023 Dated:22.11.2023
- Authority
- Authority for Advance Ruling
This page was written by Patron Accounting’s AI from the official release and reviewed before publishing. It explains the document in plain language. It is not the document itself. Where this page and the original differ, the original governs.
The short version
- Mitsubishi Electric asked if they could claim ITC on differential IGST payments.
- The company paid extra duty, interest, and a 15% penalty after an audit.
- The Authority ruled that Section 17(5) blocks ITC for taxes paid under Section 74.
- Paying a 15% penalty confirms the tax was for willful misstatement or evasion.
In short
The company asked if they could claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) on extra Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) paid after customs authorities found they had misclassified imported goods. Because the company paid a 15% penalty, the tax authority classified this as a payment made under Section 74 of the CGST Act, which relates to tax evasion or willful misstatement. The law explicitly forbids claiming ITC on any tax paid under this specific section.
What has changed
How it worked before
Businesses often assumed that any IGST paid on imports, even if paid later due to an audit, could be claimed as ITC if the underlying tax was valid.
What has changed
The Authority clarified that paying a 15% penalty for misclassification triggers a legal block on claiming ITC. This means if your business pays extra tax following an audit that includes a penalty for misstatement, you cannot recover that tax as a credit against your future GST liability.
Who this affects
Importers and businesses that have been audited by customs and required to pay differential duty along with penalties.
An example
Imagine a textile importer, FabricCo, who misclassified imported dyes and was asked by customs to pay the difference plus a 15% penalty. FabricCo might hope to claim the extra IGST as ITC in their next return. Based on this ruling, because they paid the penalty associated with misstatement, they are likely barred from claiming that credit.
What you should do
This ruling only applies to the company that asked the question. If your business is in a similar situation, you should consult a tax professional to determine if your specific payment falls under Section 74. Do not assume this ruling automatically applies to your own tax filings.
If you do nothing
If you claim ITC on tax paid under Section 74, you risk a demand notice from your local tax officer. You would then have to pay back the credit, plus interest and potential further penalties. Relying on this ruling as a blanket rule for your own business could lead to costly legal disputes.
The terms explained
- Input Tax Credit
- A system that allows businesses to reduce the tax they pay on their sales by the amount of tax they already paid on their business purchases.
- Section 74
- A part of the GST law that deals with tax not paid or short-paid due to fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts.
- Differential Customs Duty
- The extra tax amount a business must pay when authorities determine that the initial tax paid on imported goods was lower than it should have been.
The ruling in detail
Authority for Advance Ruling
Mitsubishi Electric India Private Limited
Advance Ruling No.116/AAR/2023 Dated:22.11.2023 · Tamil Nadu
Questions before the authority
- Whether the Company is eligible to avail the input tax credit (ITC) of integrated tax (IGST) paid as part of differential Customs duty for imports made during FY 2018-19, FY 2019-20 and FY 2020-21 (hereinafter referred to as "relevant period"), in terms of the timeline prescribed under Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("CGST Act, 2017")?
- Whether documents evidencing payment can be considered as a valid duty paying document for the purpose of availing ITC of the IGST paid as part of differential Customs duty paid during the relevant period, in terms of Section 16(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with rule 36(3) of CGST Rules, 2017?
- Whether the provisions prescribed under the Goods and Services Tax ('GST') law imposes any restriction on availment of ITC of the differential IGST paid post on-site audit by Customs authorities?
Facts
The applicant, a GST registrant, was found by Customs authorities during a premises-based audit to have misclassified certain imported goods during FY 2018-19 to 2020-21. Consequently, the applicant paid the differential Customs duty, including IGST, along with interest and a 15% penalty. The applicant subsequently sought an advance ruling on whether they are eligible to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) on this differential IGST payment.
Ruling
| Question | What the authority ruled |
|---|---|
| Eligibility to avail ITC on differential IGST | Refrained from giving a ruling Rendered redundant by the finding on the third question |
| Validity of documents for ITC | Refrained from giving a ruling Rendered redundant by the finding on the third question |
| Restriction on ITC for differential IGST paid post-audit | Yes, the law imposes a restriction ITC is restricted under Section 17(5) for tax paid under Section 74, regardless of whether a show cause notice was issued |
The Authority refrained from answering the first two questions regarding the timeline and validity of documents, as they were rendered redundant by the finding on the third question. Regarding the third question, the Authority ruled that the law imposes a restriction on the availment of ITC under Section 17(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, in respect of tax paid in accordance with the provisions of Section 74, irrespective of whether proceedings were initiated via audit or if a show cause notice was issued.
Reasoning
The Authority determined that the applicant's initial misclassification of goods constituted a willful misstatement to evade tax, bringing the payment under the ambit of Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017. Section 17(5)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017 explicitly denies ITC for any tax paid in accordance with the provisions of Section 74. The Authority concluded that the payment of a 15% penalty confirms the tax was determined under Section 74(5), thereby triggering the statutory restriction on ITC. Consequently, the applicant is ineligible to claim ITC on the differential IGST paid.
Provisions relied on
- Section 16(2) of the CGST Act, 2017
- Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017
- Section 17(5) of the CGST Act, 2017
- Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017
- Rule 36(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017
For the practitioner
This ruling serves as a **cautionary precedent** for taxpayers who pay differential tax post-audit with interest and penalty, as such payments may be classified as being made under Section 74, thereby **barring the availment of ITC**. Practitioners should note that the Authority interprets the payment of a 15% penalty as an admission of willful misstatement, which triggers the Section 17(5) restriction. It does not decide the validity of documents or timeline issues if the underlying tax payment is already disqualified under Section 17(5).
Source
This is a summary prepared from the published order, which is a scanned document. It is a reading aid and not the authority: where the two differ, the order governs. Verify every provision against the original before relying on it.
Original order: https://www.gstcouncil.gov.in/sites/default/files/AAR/116_mitshubishi.pdf
Legibility of the scan, as read: high.
Prepared 13-10-2026.
About Patron Accounting LLP
Patron Accounting LLP is a CA and CS-led accounting and compliance firm that has been working with businesses across India since 2019. We handle the work that keeps a company correct with every department it answers to: day-to-day bookkeeping and accounting, GST registration and returns, income tax filing and assessments, TDS, payroll and PF/ESI, company and LLP incorporation, ROC and MCA compliance, statutory and internal audit, physical stock and inventory audits, trademark and other registrations, and the certificates and reports that banks, buyers and regulators ask for.
Our clients range from a first proprietorship registering for GST to established companies running operations across several states. Much of our work is exactly this: reading what a department has published and telling a business, in plain terms, whether it changes anything for them.
We operate from five offices and serve clients across the rest of India remotely:
- Pune (HQ): RTC Silver, B4-708, Sai Satyam Park, Wagholi, Pune, Maharashtra 412207
- Mumbai: 104, Rajshila Building, 597 J.S.S. Road, Marine Lines, Mumbai 400002
- Delhi: 3rd Floor, B-6/154-155, Sector 5, Rohini, Delhi 110085
- Gurugram: Pioneer Urban Square, B109, Golf Course Ext Road, Sector 62, Gurugram 122098
- Ahmedabad: Phoenix Tower, 1107, near Commerce Six Road, Drive In Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380009
If anything on this page affects you and you would like somebody to look at your own position, we are glad to help. Call +91 94594 56700, write to sales@patronaccounting.com, or visit patronaccounting.com. The first conversation costs nothing.