2023 (10) TMI 1204 - HC - GST

Input Tax Credit - denial on the ground that the Input Tax Credit to such an extent claimed by the petitioner-assessee was not effected in Form GSTR-2A and the supply dealer has not mentioned the supplies involved in the petitioner-dealer in form GSTR-1 - HELD THAT - Section 155 of the GST Act, 2017, takes care of such a situation wherein the fact that the assessee/dealer has taken inward supply, and the dealer has prepaid the admissible GST to the supplier-dealer and the supplier-dealer has not deposited the said tax amount to the Government, in such a situation the burden is on the person who claims the Input Tax Credit to prove his claim. The paid person in such a situation is required to furnish documentary evidence to prove that such tax has been paid by him. The assessing authority has denied the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the Input Tax Credit claimed by the petitioner was not reflected in GSTR-2A and he did not submit any proof of the payment of the GST to the Government. 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 has held that the assessing officer is required to give an opportunity to the assessee in respect of his claim for Input Tax Credit, if there is difference between GSTR- 2A and GSTR-3B. If on examination of the evidence submitted by the assessee, the assessing officer is satisfied that the claim is bonafide and genuine, the assessee should be given the Input Tax Credit. Merely on the ground that in Form GSTR-2A the tax to an extent of Input Tax Credit being claimed by the petitioner is not reflected should not be a sufficient ground to deny the claim of the assessee for Input Tax Credit. Considering the aforesaid facts of the case and the judgment in the case of 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 , the impugned assessment order so far as the denial of Input Tax Credit to the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 1,04,342/- is set aside. The case is remitted back to the file of the assessing authority to examine the evidence in possession of the petitioner as such irrespective of the difference in GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B and on examination of the evidence, if the assessing authority is satisfied with the claim of the petitioner for Input Tax Credit to the extent of Rs. 1,04,342/- which is denied by the Assessing Authority shall pass orders in accordance with law. Petition disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Impugning Ext. P5 assessment order denying Input Tax Credit.

Summary:
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the Ext. P5 assessment order denying Input Tax Credit of Rs. 1,04,342. The denial was based on the grounds that the claimed credit was not reflected in Form GSTR-2A and no proof of payment of GST to the Government was submitted. The assessing authority relied on Section 155 of the GST Act, 2017, which places the burden on the claimant to prove the payment of tax. However, the High Court, referencing various judgments, held that the assessing officer must give an opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their claim for Input Tax Credit, even if there is a disparity between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B. The assessing authority is required to independently evaluate the evidence provided by the assessee to determine the genuineness of the claim.

The Court, considering the facts and the precedent set by the case of Diya Agencies, set aside the assessment order denying Input Tax Credit and remitted the case back to the assessing authority for reevaluation. The petitioner was directed to appear before the assessing authority with all relevant documents within fifteen days. The assessing authority was instructed to review the evidence promptly and issue a fresh order based on their findings. Finally, the writ petition was disposed of with the aforementioned directions.