9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 936 - HC - GSTAvailment of Input Credit - Denial of benefit of the Circular dated 2.1.2023 - Respondent submitted that the benefit of circular dated 2.1.2023 cannot be accorded to the petitioner as the matter has already been adjudicated up to the first stage of first appellate authority - HELD THAT - On perusal of the circular dated 2.1.2023 with regard to the input availment in FORM-3B clearly shows that the supplier has to file GSTR-1 as well as in the return of GSTR-3B for the tax period but he has to declare the supply but if he has declared the supply with the wrong GSTIN of the recipient in the Form of GSTR-1, in such cases, difference in GSTR claimed by the registered person in his return in form of GSTR- 3B and that available in form of GSTR-2A may be only by the procedure provided in para 4 in the aforesaid circular. Any circular or notification issued during the pendency of the litigation, the benefit cannot be denied. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mathew M. Thomas and others Vs. Commissioners of Income Tax, 1999 (2) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT has held that if a a benevolent Circular has come into existence during the pendency of an appeal, the benefit of the same should not be denied to the assess. Further, adopting the similar view, this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. S/s. Agrawal Rolling Mills, Mirzapur, 2003 (4) TMI 550 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT has held that the benefit of circular, which came into existence during the pendency of the appeal, even up to the stage of revision, the benefit of same cannot be denied to the assessee. The matters are remanded back to the respondent no.2 to pass a fresh order within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order taking into consideration the Circular dated 2.1.2023 as well as judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention of his cases - petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are related to the assailing of an order passed by the respondent under the provisions of Section 73 of the UP Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, regarding the migration of GSTINs and the denial of Input Tax Credit (ITC) to the petitioner. Judgment Details: The petitioner was registered under the VAT Act and the Service Tax Act before the GST regime. Due to authorities' fault, two GSTINs were provided to the petitioner, causing confusion in business transactions. The petitioner claimed ITC on one GSTIN but faced proceedings due to discrepancies. A circular issued during the case clarified procedures for handling such discrepancies in ITC claims. The petitioner sought the benefit of the circular, arguing that denial of ITC was unjust. The Circular dated 2.1.2023 outlined procedures for handling discrepancies in ITC claims due to wrong GSTIN declarations by suppliers. The court noted that benefits of circulars issued during litigation cannot be denied. Citing legal precedents, the court emphasized that benefits of beneficial circulars should not be denied to the assessee during the pendency of appeals. The court referred to a Division Bench judgment highlighting the importance of following circular procedures and remanding cases for fresh decisions based on circular provisions. Considering the legal principles and circumstances of the case, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matters to the respondent for fresh decisions within a specified time frame, taking into account the Circular dated 2.1.2023 and relevant judgments cited by the petitioner. In conclusion, the writ petitions were allowed based on the interpretation of the circular and legal precedents, leading to the setting aside of the previous order and remand for fresh decisions.
|
