2025 (1) TMI 1248 - HC - GST

Availment of excess amount of Input Tax Credit in GSTR-3B than the amount of Input Tax Credit available as per GSTR-2A -petitioner contended that merely because data of purchase is not reflected in GSTR-2A it is not a valid ground for denial of Input Tax Credit - HELD THAT - The fact that the petitioner had uploaded documents along with the appeal filed before the Joint Commissioner can be seen from Serial No.18 of Form GST APL-01 along with brief facts and also mentioning several grounds of appeal . The said documents include online reply ASMT-11 to the ASMT-10 notice. Therefore the stand of the respondents that no reply was given to ASMT-10 notice is factually incorrect. Therefore the order of the 2nd Respondent is vitiated on account of non-consideration of the same. Under Section 107(8) of the Act it is duty of the Appellate Authority to give an opportunity to the appellant of being heard. There is no evidence that such opportunity of hearing was provided to the appellant by the Joint Commissioner - Moreover under Section 107(12) of the Act the order of the Appellate Authority disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision. Conclusion - Since the order (Annexure-3) passed by the Appellate Authority is in blatant violation of the above provisions of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 on account of non-compliance with Sections 107 (8) and 107 (12) thereof the said order as well as the order of the Primary Authority (Annexure-1) are both set aside; the matter is remitted to the Primary Authority (Respondent 2) to issue notice of hearing to the petitioner consider the documents such as ASMT-11 filed online by the petitioner to ASMT-10 notice and then pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. Petition allowed by way of remand.

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issues considered in this judgment include:

Whether the denial of Input Tax Credit (ITC) based solely on discrepancies between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A without providing an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard is justified.
Whether the Appellate Authority's decision to reject the appeal without providing a hearing or requesting further documentation was in compliance with the procedural requirements under the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Whether the orders of both the Primary and Appellate Authorities were valid in light of the procedural lapses alleged by the petitioner.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Denial of Input Tax Credit Based on GSTR Discrepancies

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, governs the procedural and substantive aspects of ITC claims. The Act requires that any denial of ITC must be based on valid grounds and after providing the taxpayer an opportunity to be heard.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the petitioner had uploaded documents, including a reply to the ASMT-10 notice, contradicting the respondents' claim of non-reply. This indicated a failure by the Primary Authority to consider the petitioner's submissions.
Key evidence and findings: The petitioner provided evidence of having uploaded necessary documents through Form GST APL-01, which was not considered by the authorities.
Application of law to facts: The Court found that the denial of ITC without proper consideration of the petitioner's submissions and without a hearing was a procedural lapse.
Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents argued that the petitioner failed to respond to notices, but the Court found this claim factually incorrect based on the evidence presented.
Conclusions: The Court concluded that the denial of ITC was unjustified due to procedural non-compliance by the authorities.

Procedural Compliance by the Appellate Authority

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Sections 107(8) and 107(12) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, mandate that the Appellate Authority must provide an opportunity for a hearing and issue a reasoned order.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the Appellate Authority failed to comply with these statutory requirements, as there was no evidence of a hearing being provided or a reasoned order being issued.
Key evidence and findings: The order dated 28.02.2022 lacked the necessary elements of a reasoned decision, such as points for determination and reasons for the decision.
Application of law to facts: The Court applied the statutory requirements to the facts and found a clear violation by the Appellate Authority.
Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents did not provide evidence that the petitioner was asked to submit additional documents, undermining their argument of procedural compliance.
Conclusions: The Court concluded that the Appellate Authority's order was invalid due to procedural deficiencies.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: The Court stated, "Since the order (Annexure-3) passed by the Appellate Authority is in blatant violation of the above provisions of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, on account of non-compliance with Sections 107 (8) and 107 (12) thereof, the said order as well as the order of the Primary Authority (Annexure-1) are both set aside."
Core principles established: The judgment underscores the necessity for tax authorities to adhere strictly to procedural requirements, including providing taxpayers with a fair opportunity to present their case and issuing reasoned decisions.
Final determinations on each issue: Both the order of the Primary Authority and the Appellate Authority were set aside. The matter was remitted to the Primary Authority for reconsideration, with instructions to provide a hearing and consider all relevant documents submitted by the petitioner. Additionally, the respondents were ordered to pay costs to the petitioner.

← Previous Next →