9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 926 - HC - GSTValidity of assessment order and recovery notice - input tax credit denied merely on the difference of GSTR 2A and 3B - HELD THAT - This Court, in DIYA AGENCIES VERSUS THE STATE TAX OFFICER, THE STATE TAX OFFICER, UNION OF INDIA, THE CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES CUSTOMS, THE STATE OF KERALA 2023 (9) TMI 955 - KERALA HIGH COURT after taking note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of THE STATE OF KARNATAKA VERSUS M/S ECOM GILL COFFEE TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED 2023 (3) TMI 533 - SUPREME COURT as well as Calcutta High Court judgment in SUNCRAFT ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, STATE TAX, BALLYGUNGE CHARGE AND OTHERS 2023 (8) TMI 174 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT has held that the input tax credit of the assessee under the GST regime cannot be denied merely on the difference of GSTR 2A and 3B. The matter is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Authority to examine the evidence of the petitioner irrespective of the Form GSTR 2A for petitioner's claim of the input tax credit. After examination of the evidence placed by the petitioner/assessee, the Assessing Authority shall pass fresh orders in accordance with the law. Petition allowed.
Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are the impugning of Ext. P1 assessment order and Ext. P2 recovery notice dated 20.08.2022 and 24.07.2023, respectively, based on the denial of input tax credit due to the difference between GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B. Judgment Details: Issue 1: Impugning of Assessment Order and Recovery Notice The present writ petition challenges the Ext. P1 assessment order and Ext. P2 recovery notice dated 20.08.2022 and 24.07.2023. The assessment order denied the input tax credit to the petitioner based solely on the variance between GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B. Issue 2: Precedent and Legal Analysis The Court referred to the case of Diya Agencies v. The State Tax Officer and highlighted the judgment of the Supreme Court in The State of Karnataka v. M/s Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited. Additionally, the Calcutta High Court judgment in Suncraft Energy Private Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Ballygunge Charge was considered. The Court held that denial of input tax credit solely on the basis of differences between GSTR 2A and 3B is not sustainable. Issue 3: Court's Direction The Court directed the Assessing Officer to reexamine the evidence submitted by the petitioner regarding the input tax credit claim. The petitioner is to be given an opportunity to substantiate the claim, and if found genuine, the input tax credit should be granted. Merely the absence of tax reflection in GSTR-2A should not be sufficient grounds for denial. The Assessing Authority is instructed to pass fresh orders after evaluating the evidence presented by the petitioner. Conclusion: The writ petition is allowed, and the matter is remitted back to the Assessing Authority for a reevaluation of the petitioner's evidence related to the input tax credit claim. The petitioner is required to appear before the Assessing Officer with all supporting evidence on 03.10.2023 at 11.00 a.m. for further proceedings in accordance with the law.
|
