2022 (6) TMI 652 - HC - GST

Validity of assessment order - Period of limitation of 3 years u/s 73 of GST - reversal of Input tax credit - assessment year 2017-18 - case of petitioner is that the assessing officer should have passed an order within three years period from the due date for furnishing of annual return for the financial year to which the tax was not paid or short paid or input tax credit wrongly availed etc. - HELD THAT - Insofar as the limitation point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, as has been rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, that, the three years period ends only on 30.09.2021 within which since the order dated 08.07.2021 has been passed it is saved by limitation. Therefore, that point cannot be canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in favour of the petitioner. Insofar as other merits of the case like submission of supporting documents etc., this Court need not go into those aspects and that matter has to be necessarily gone into by the appellate authority before whom the petitioner can file appeal under Section 107 of the Act. This writ petition is not entertainable and accordingly it is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the reversal of Input Tax Credit under the GST regime.
2. Interpretation of Section 73(10) of the TNGST Act, 2017 regarding the time limit for passing orders.
3. Availability of original documents to support the claim for Input Tax Credit.
4. Argument on limitation period for challenging the impugned order.
5. Whether the appellate authority should decide on the merits of the case.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the reversal of Input Tax Credit through a Writ Petition, contending that the assessing officer should have passed an order within three years from the due date for furnishing the annual return. The petitioner argued that the impugned order was infirm due to the limitation period expiring. However, the Government Advocate argued that the order was passed within the three-year period, saving it from being time-barred.

Regarding the availability of original documents to support the claim, the petitioner asserted readiness to submit them before the assessing authority. The Government Advocate highlighted that the appellate authority could decide on such issues, emphasizing the missed opportunity by the petitioner to file an appeal within the prescribed timeline.

The Court acknowledged the submissions from both sides and ruled that the limitation point raised by the petitioner was not valid as the order was passed within the stipulated period. The Court also clarified that the merits of the case, including document submission, should be addressed by the appellate authority through the appeal process under Section 107 of the Act.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition, stating that the impugned order could be challenged through an appeal before the appellate authority. The petitioner was granted liberty to file such an appeal within two weeks, failing which they would face consequences due to the limitation period specified in the Act and rules. The judgment concluded with the dismissal of the Writ Petition without costs, and the connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.