2025 (3) TMI 1018 - HC - GST

Attachment of petitioner s current Banking Account - HELD THAT - The legal issue involved in this Writ Petition has already been dealt with by this Court in SRI GANAPATHI PANDI INDUSTRIES REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (STATE TAX) (FAC) TONDIARPET ASSESSMENT CIRCLE CHENNAI 2024 (10) TMI 1631 - MADRAS HIGH COURT this Court is inclined to dispose of the present Writ Petition on the same lines. It was held in the above case that The orders impugned in all Writ Petitions are quashed insofar as it relates to the claim made by the petitioners for ITC which is barred by limitation in terms of Section 16 (4) of the CGST Act 2017 but within the period prescribed in terms of Section 16 (5) of the said Act. Petition allowed.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal question considered in this judgment is the challenge to the order dated 30.06.2023 and the consequential communication dated 05.01.2024, which involved the attachment of the petitioner's bank account under the provisions of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The petitioner sought to quash these orders as arbitrary, arguing that the issue had already been decided in a previous batch of writ petitions.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Relevant legal framework and precedents:

The legal framework revolves around Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017, particularly subsections (4), (5), and (6). Section 16(4) sets a deadline for claiming Input Tax Credit (ITC), while the amendments introduced subsections (5) and (6), which extended the deadline for certain financial years due to extraordinary circumstances, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Court's interpretation and reasoning:

The Court noted that the issue had been previously adjudicated in a batch of writ petitions, where it was determined that the petitioners were entitled to claim ITC for the financial years 2017-18 to 2020-21 until 30.11.2021, notwithstanding the original deadline set by Section 16(4). The Court recognized the amendments to Section 16, which provided relief to taxpayers who faced delays due to unforeseen circumstances.

Key evidence and findings:

The Court found that the petitioners, including the current petitioner, were unable to file GSTR-3B returns on time due to financial constraints and other difficulties. The respondent department's actions to reverse ITC claims and impose penalties were challenged as being inconsistent with the amended provisions of the CGST Act.

Application of law to facts:

Applying the amended Section 16(5), the Court held that the petitioners were entitled to claim ITC for the specified financial years up to the extended deadline. The impugned orders, which were based on the original deadline, were deemed unsustainable and were quashed.

Treatment of competing arguments:

The Government Advocate conceded that the issue was covered by the previous decision. The Court addressed concerns about discrepancies in ITC claims, granting the department liberty to pursue such issues separately, in accordance with the law.

Conclusions:

The Court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief as granted in the previous batch of writ petitions. The impugned orders were quashed, and the department was directed to unfreeze the petitioner's bank account and refrain from further proceedings based on the limitation issue.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning:

"The orders impugned in all Writ Petitions are quashed insofar as it relates to the claim made by the petitioners for ITC which is barred by limitation in terms of Section 16 (4) of the CGST Act, 2017 but, within the period prescribed in terms of Section 16 (5) of the said Act."

Core principles established:

The judgment reaffirms the principle that legislative amendments providing relief due to extraordinary circumstances must be applied retrospectively to protect taxpayer rights. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to amended statutory provisions when assessing taxpayer obligations and entitlements.

Final determinations on each issue:

The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned orders, and directed the respondent department to unfreeze the petitioner's bank account. It also provided guidance on handling related issues, such as discrepancies in ITC claims, separately and in accordance with the law.