9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 340 - HC - GSTDisallowance of Input Tax Credit - It has been observed that the petitioner neither filed any reply nor remitted the tax and interest on or after the due date - HELD THAT - The period involved is 2017-18 when the GST regime was rolled out. There may be some substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner faced enormous difficulty in understanding the provisions of the GST Act. He also submits that the tax has been paid to the Government. Therefore, the Government is not at a loss for which the petitioner's claim for input tax claim has been disallowed. The impugned order to the extent of disallowing the input tax credit of Rs. 4,84,448/- is set aside. The petitioner is directed to appear before the State Tax Officer, Kayamkulam, with all the relevant documents in his possession to support his claim for the input tax credit of an amount of Rs. 4,84,448/- for the Assessment Year 2017-18. Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment include challenges to the assessment orders issued under the SGST/CGST Act for the Assessment Year 2017-18 based on discrepancies in the monthly returns filed by the petitioner, disallowance of input tax credit claims, imposition of interest and penalties, and the petitioner's request for an opportunity to produce supporting documents. Issue 1: Discrepancies in Monthly Returns and Assessment Order The petitioner, a registered dealer under the CGST/SGST Act, filed monthly returns GSTR3B for the Assessment Year 2017-18. Discrepancies in the returns led to the issuance of notices, including Form GST ASMT 10 and Form GST DRC-01A, demanding payment of tax and interest. Despite opportunities to respond and provide evidence, the petitioner did not comply. Subsequently, an assessment order was issued disallowing input tax credit claims, levying interest and penalties totaling Rs. 4,84,448. Issue 2: Petitioner's Submission and Opposing Arguments The petitioner's counsel argued that during the initial GST implementation period, small dealers faced challenges, and the petitioner had evidence to support the input tax credit claims. In contrast, the respondent contended that the petitioner did not respond to notices, indicating compliance with legal provisions and principles of natural justice. Judgment for Issue 1: Disallowance of Input Tax Credit Considering the difficulties faced during the GST rollout and the petitioner's claim that taxes were paid to the government, the court set aside the disallowance of input tax credit amounting to Rs. 4,84,448. The petitioner was directed to appear before the State Tax Officer with relevant documents to support the claim, and fresh orders were to be passed within two weeks. The petitioner was advised to pursue appropriate legal remedies if dissatisfied, with a caveat that a writ petition would not be entertained. Issue 3: Assessment Order Disputes and Request for Opportunity In a separate writ petition, similar challenges were raised regarding discrepancies in monthly returns, disallowance of input tax credit claims, and the imposition of interest and penalties totaling Rs. 5,87,752. The petitioner sought an opportunity to present supporting documents to substantiate the claims. Judgment for Issue 3: Disallowance of Input Tax Credit and Fresh Orders The court set aside the disallowance of input tax credit in this case as well. The petitioner was directed to appear before the State Tax Officer with relevant documents, and fresh orders were to be passed within two weeks. Similar to the previous issue, the petitioner was advised on further legal recourse, with a reminder that a writ petition would not be entertained. Conclusion: Both writ petitions were disposed of with directions for the petitioner to present supporting documents before the respective State Tax Officers for reconsideration of the input tax credit claims. The court emphasized the importance of compliance with legal procedures and the availability of statutory remedies for addressing grievances.
|
