9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 377 - HC - GSTValidity of assessment order - Rejection of Input tax credit - reason for denial is that though the petitioner had filed GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B within the enlarged time, since certain suppliers had not filed GSTR-1 before the due date ie 30.04.2019, the entire ITC claim had been rejected under Section 16(4)of the Act. HELD THAT - The matter is remitted back to the file of the assessing authority, 1st respondent to consider the issue afresh in the light of judgment in Diya Agencies 2023 (9) TMI 955 - KERALA HIGH COURT and pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Assessing officer on 05.01.2024, with all evidence and report denying the input tax credit, which is evident in Ext. P1 order. The impugned order set aside - the writ petition stands finally allowed.
Issues involved: Impugning Ext. P2 assessment order u/s GST / CGST Act, 2017 for denial of input tax credit.
Summary: 1. The petitioner, an assessee under the GST / CGST Act, 2017, filed GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B returns for July 2017 to March 2018 claiming input tax credit. Notices were issued but the petitioner couldn't reply. The 1st respondent passed Ext. P2 assessment order denying input tax credit under Section 16(4) of the Act due to suppliers not filing GSTR-1 on time. 2. The petitioner's counsel argued lack of opportunity to represent the case before the 1st respondent due to difficulties in understanding GST implementation. Citing a previous judgment, the petitioner sought a chance to prove the genuineness of the input tax credit claim. 3. Referring to a specific paragraph of a previous judgment, the court remanded the matter back to the assessing authority to reconsider the issue in light of the judgment and allow the petitioner to provide evidence for the input tax credit claim. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Assessing officer with all evidence on a specified date. 4. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and Ext. P2 order was set aside, directing a fresh assessment after hearing the petitioner and considering the evidence provided. This summary provides a detailed breakdown of the judgment, highlighting the issues involved and the court's decision on each aspect of the case.
|
