Article Section | |||||||||||
Home Articles Goods and Services Tax - GST CA Bimal Jain Experts This |
|||||||||||
Claim of ITC through GSTR-3B justified since Form GST ITC-02 was not live on common portal |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
Claim of ITC through GSTR-3B justified since Form GST ITC-02 was not live on common portal |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in M/S TIKONA INFINET PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER - 2023 (8) TMI 46 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT set aside the demand raised on the ground that assessee instead of passing the Input Tax Credit (“ITC”) through Form GST ITC-02 transferred ITC through Form GSTR-3B and held that the stand of the Revenue Department was not correct since the Form ITC-02 was not live on the common portal. Facts: M/s. Tikona Infinet Private Ltd. (“the Petitioner”) is engaged in providing internet service across India from various State including the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Petitioner entered into a business transfer agreement with M/s. Tikona Digital Network Pvt. Ltd. on August 17, 2017. M/s. Tikona Digital Network Pvt. Ltd. (TDN) has accumulated ITC balance of more than INR 3,13,13,68,997 which was unutilized. The Petitioner being entitled to transfer the ITC remaining unutilised under section 18(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”) attempted to transfer the same as per the procedure prescribed under Rule 41 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 ("the CGST Rules”). However, due to non-availability of functionality to transfer ITC on common portal the Petitioner manually accepted and availed the ITC of INR 3,13,68,997/-. Revenue Department (“the Respondent”) issued a Show Cause Notice on February 28, 2023 (“the SCN”) to the Petitioner demanding the differential ITC of INR 2,88,35,905.60 along with interest and penalty. The Petitioner submitted reply of the SCN on March 13, 2023 with a prayer to withdraw the SCN. However, the Adjudicating Authority vide an order dated April 17, 2023 (“the Impugned Order”) without considering the reply filed by the Petitioner confirmed the demand on the ground that the transfer of the said ITC has been accepted and availed by the Petitioner through Form GSTR-3B instead of Form GST ITC-02. The Petitioner filed writ before the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court questioning the legality propriety and correctness of the Impugned order. Issue: Whether the Petitioner could manually transfer ITC in case Form GST ITC-02 was not available on common portal? Held: The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in M/S TIKONA INFINET PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER - 2023 (8) TMI 46 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT held as under:
(Author can be reached at [email protected])
By: CA Bimal Jain - August 12, 2023
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||