2021 (12) TMI 229 - HC - GST

Rejection of ITC claim - name of the agency and GSTIN has been incorrectly mentioned - Section 73 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act. 2017 - HELD THAT - The notice dated 06.06.2019 is quashed with the direction to the assessing officer to issue a fresh notice in the light of the statutory provisions and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. All proceedings be positively complied with in these matters. Petition stands allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of ITC claim under TRANS-1
2. Incorrect issuance of show cause notice
3. Rejection of State Goods and Services Tax Transit Credit
4. Issuance of DRC 07 for tax, interest, and penalty
5. Withholding order issued by the Joint Commissioner
6. Attachment of bank amount for non-payment
7. Relief sought by the petitioner

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought relief for setting aside the order rejecting the Input Tax Credit (ITC) claim under TRANS-1. The High Court observed that the impugned order was passed with errors in naming the parties and GST numbers. The Court noted that these errors were not typographical but handwritten, indicating a lack of proper application of mind. The petitioner requested consideration based on a previous judgment, and the Court directed the Assessing Officer to review the case in light of the mentioned judgment.

2. The petitioner challenged a show cause notice issued under Section 73 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act. The notice was for a significant amount of tax, interest, and penalty. The Court found that the notice was issued without complying with mandatory provisions and without considering that the services provided were tax-free. The Court quashed the notice and directed the assessing officer to issue a fresh notice following statutory provisions.

3. The rejection of the State Goods and Services Tax Transit Credit (TRAN-1) was also contested by the petitioner. The Court noted the liability imposed on the petitioner and the issuance of DRC 07 for recovery. The petitioner sought to set aside these actions, and the Court directed the assessing officer to reevaluate the matter and comply with all proceedings accordingly.

4. The issuance of DRC 07 for the recovery of tax, interest, and penalty was challenged by the petitioner. The Court found violations of natural justice and statutory provisions in the order. Consequently, the Court quashed the order and directed a fresh assessment in accordance with the law.

5. The petitioner objected to a withholding order issued by the Joint Commissioner, directing the withholding of a specific amount. The Court quashed this order and instructed the assessing officer to proceed in compliance with statutory requirements.

6. The petitioner's bank amount was attached due to non-payment, as per an order issued by the Joint Commissioner. The Court addressed this issue and ordered the release of the attached amount, allowing the petitioner to operate the bank account subject to case outcome.

7. Various other reliefs were sought by the petitioner, including the declaration of tax exemption for services provided and the refund of certain amounts. The Court granted relief where procedural errors or violations were found, emphasizing compliance with statutory provisions and principles of natural justice throughout the proceedings.