9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (8) TMI 64 - HC - GSTRejection of claim of the petitioner for Input Tax Credit - period from July 2017 to March 2018 - Challenge to assessment order - HELD THAT - Ext.P1 assessment order to the extent it denies Input Tax Credit of Rs.5,10,808.68/- owing to the alleged mismatch between GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B of the supplier will stand set aside. Since Ext.P1 covers other issues also, it is made clear that Ext.P1 is interfered with only to the extent that it denies Input Tax Credit and all other issues as determined by Ext.P1 will continue to operate. Therefore, this writ petition will stand disposed of directing that if the petitioner files an application for rectification of Ext.P1 order to the extent that it denies Input Tax Credit for the sum of Rs.5,10,808.68/- along with documents in support of the claim for Input Tax Credit, the same shall be considered by the respondent and orders shall be passed on the application, in accordance with the law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Petition disposed off.
Issues: Assessment under Goods and Services Act for July 2017 to March 2018 - Rejection of Input Tax Credit claim of Rs.5,10,808.68 due to mismatch between GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B.
Analysis: The petitioner's assessment under the Goods and Services Act for the period from July 2017 to March 2018 was completed with an order (Ext.P1) rejecting the claim for Input Tax Credit amounting to Rs.5,10,808.68. The petitioner argued that as per circular Ext.P2 dated 27.12.2022, the assessing officer should have requested a certificate from the supplier when there is a mismatch in GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B. Although the officer did not ask for the documents, the petitioner expressed willingness to provide them via email. The court noted that the assessment order did not mention any request for an explanation regarding the mismatch, leading to the rejection of the Input Tax Credit claim. The Government Pleader contended that all documents provided by the petitioner were considered during the assessment. However, when questioned by the Court about the mismatch explanation, it was acknowledged that the assessment order did not indicate any request for such clarification. After hearing both parties and reviewing circular Ext.P2, the Court concluded that the denial of Input Tax Credit due to the mismatch should be set aside. The judgment clarified that while Ext.P1 would continue to apply to other issues, it was interfered with only regarding the Input Tax Credit denial. The writ petition was disposed of with directions for the petitioner to file an application for rectification of the order, including supporting documents, for the denied Input Tax Credit. The respondent was instructed to review the application, pass orders in accordance with the law, and provide an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard.
|
